Wow. That's all I can say. Wow.

Wow--hard to believe that got printed--crazy & tasteless.

WOW that was so racist! I can't believe it. I simply can't believe it. ????!!!!

But Abhi, why are you calling Intel, Dell? Are they the same?

i cannot believe this even got to the printing stage - was there nobody involved in this marketing campaign (white, black, or otherwise) that at least pointed out the racial overtones? or did those in a managerial position just not care? honestly, it should not take 25,000 faxes for intel to think to pull this ad. and any apology is basically bullshit. though i am not at all surprised by the desi version...

Intel do tend to shoot themselves in the foot.

That being said, I just want to play devil's advocate, here: Are they bowing, or getting ready to sprint? To be fair, my first thought was the latter.

But Abhi, why are you calling Intel, Dell? Are they the same?

Woops! Thanks Amitabh, that was a total mistake on my part. It is fixed now.

But Abhi, why are you calling Intel, Dell? Are they the same?

They all look the same. ;)

I almost fell out of my seat when I saw Intel’s new advertising campaign. It shows six bowing African American athletes before a chino-clad, oxford-shirted white manager with the slug: “Maximize the power of your employees.” This ad reminds me of a slave-ship, and it’s hard to imagine the same imagery did not come to mind for the savvy ad exec that created it…

Bowing? They're sprinters.. that's a sprinter's starting pose.

They should've seen how it would be misread though.

Or is the real racism is that Intel thinks white or brown or east asian people can't be sprinters.. :)

they do actually seem to be set for running, but the racial implications should have been obvious before it went to print. in fact, the very choice of a white manager with all-black runners (if that's what they are) plays out certain stereotypes. why not just make the manager black as well? or the runners of mixed races?

i cannot believe this even got to the printing stage - was there nobody involved in this marketing campaign (white, black, or otherwise) that at least pointed out the racial overtones?

Sometimes I think (and have been told by others) that I go overboard when I express frustration at the portrayal of brown-skinned people in the evil (joke) media. But maybe not.

Wow, the number of companies whose products I avoid is drastically increasing....no Intel, Apple (which'll be tough since I'm an OSX fan), AT&T, Verizon, ....

I wonder how or why these things get out. I'm sure this must have gone through several hands before its release. I guess it proves marketing people can be really out of touch.

ak, I agree. This is clearly a case of being brain dead and insensitive. Is it just me or do all the runners seem like the same guy photoshopped over? I wish I had a high res image.

Here is the even more interesting part. When the ad was printed in Indian print media they replaced the white dude with a very light skinned Indian “massa’”:

Very light skinned? He's the same shade as the sprinter's back. Besides, that image is black and white. Would be interesting to see what they did in other markets.

Check this out:

http://blogs.intel.com/views/2007/07/sprinter_ad.html

I honestly winced when I saw the last name.. :)

I saw this comment on the same blog:

Aug 09 | M Waverly said:

As an African American male who works in the public sector I do not find the ad racist, but it is extremelly insensitive to the well documented struggle of Af-Am’s in the US. It makes me wonder if any black men or women are assigned to the Integrated Marketing Division of the company. For me, this is the type of unintentional, but still painful, stereotypical advertising that is produced when ther are no Black people in the room to say “Wait a minute…”

I thought it was a joke...you know, some kind of spoof a la Adbusters.

Let me not even get into the contrast between those dark, half-nude bent bodies and Mr. Corporate America with his khakis and benign smile. Man, who would have thought khakis could look so bad...

Could it be the work of yesmen? :)

I don't care if they "apologized." This ad has institutionalized racism written aaaaaalll over it. here was have perceptions of class and identity in full swing. Take a good look at the "sprinters"- they are all the same person. So what gives here? All x's look alike? That you, as a manager, don't need to be able to see your work force as people? And why does the manager have on more clothing than the "sprinters?" The "sprinter" has a typical "Black" athlete look. And the manager? Silicon Valley... This ad bothers me to no end.

Bowing? They're sprinters.. that's a sprinter's starting pose.

that is what it looks like to me as well. i can't imagine how it looks like a rower. it is the american psyche and history playing i guess.

i don't think asian markets will even get the reference---maybe the ad was outsourced?

when i saw that ad, I saw it as sprinters getting ready to run.

My god, there is nothing covert about this. I mean, there's tons of subliminal racist imagery that is in advertising, but this is so openly awful. I can't believe they did that.

Jean Kilbourne has a great body of work on advertising and images of women, but does anyone know of similar works on race and marketing?

Or is the real racism is that Intel thinks white or brown or east asian people can't be sprinters.. :)

Thats the stereotype right? African American athletes, white guy - some ivy league khaki clad MBA grad, and the brown guy.. well I am just glad, they did not show apu with a new computer with an intel chip!

Thats the stereotype right? African American athletes...

well, how do you know they are african *american*? :)

*little threadjack* but depending on who you ask, there is potentially no stereotype here. among athletes, when it comes to running, east africans runners are the gold standard today in grace, speed and endurance. every big marathon today seems to be won by someone from that region---despite that region being impoverished. it is a tribute to these amazing athletes that every runner aspires to be like the big names (many many of them) from this region.

My god, there is nothing covert about this. I mean, there's tons of subliminal racist imagery that is in advertising, but this is so openly awful. I can't believe they did that.

We are talking about a company that is in business to make money, not a socially conservative politician who decides to throw African-Americans under the bus in favor of the racist vote. This was stupid and is more of an example of an ad agency skimping on cost (by not procuring images of other sprinters) than racism

i am NOT PC, but wtf?!?! get a brain, or at least go quad-core in the marketing dept.

btw,

I honestly winced when I saw the last name.. :)

sheez white yo. she just likes to get "hit" by the brown-hard core.

Though the races that the east african runners participate in (long distance, marathon) do not have them starting the race with them bent over, as shown in the picture. That's for short-distance races.

Wow.

Even if that wasn't intentionally designed someone missed how it would read across diverse population.

Here is a non-racist way the ad may have come about:

The athletes are black because, to the general public, black athletes represent speed, agility, stamina, etc. more than do athletes of other colors. That the manager is white is just how managers are represented in tech ads, and the guy who put together the image was on auto-pilot. So no racism would have been intended, but one can see how the result has offended some people.

"the guy who put together the image was on auto-pilot. So no racism would have been intended,"

Oh, please. It doesn't have to be intended. It is all the more insidious for being unconscious. Think about Friends, for example- just how realistic is it for the groups to have almost no friends of any other race? In New York? Media creators have a social responsibility to be aware of how their visuals read. Period.

It doesn't have to be intended. It is all the more insidious for being unconscious.

There is so much racism that is "unintended" -- I mean how many times has someone genuinely, honestly used the phrase "I'm not racist, I have [insert group X] friends, but [insert crappy generalization about group X here]." I mean that person genuinely thinks they're not being racist, but they often are.

The black people in the advertisement were not deliberately positioned as slaves - I agree that they are, in fact, depicted as runners - nevertheless the imagery is so close to that of a slave ship it's difficult to imagine some people WOULDN'T make that association. That is just so stupidly, openly, unnecessarily nasty I'm really kind of blown away.

Also, was the first ad supposed to appeal to white people? Because this whitey is distinctly embarrassed...

was there nobody involved in this marketing campaign (white, black, or otherwise)

I'm sure there were, but no one probably said anything out of fear of looking 'too sensitive' in particular when it could have repercussions on their job. Especially if a minority manager said something like, "Yea some people might find it offensive, but they're just being too sensitive" - the people in charge of course have made the mistake by regarding this minority manager as a proxy for their entire racial opinion (as if the racial opinion is monolithic in the first place). (Sort of like, when Rosie O'Donnel asked her asian makeup artist if the 'ching chong' thing was offensive, do you think the makeup artist will be completely honest?)

As for white people who may have been in charge, I agree they have a responsibility as well, but it's a pretty tall expectation for most white persons to have an active knowledge of what may or may not be offensive or have undertones/imagery that clearly is rooted in racist history (from my experience, the only way most whites believe other whites are 'racist' is when they burn a cross, and wearing a pointy white hat). It's a history they don't share, so it's not surprising for them to be somewhat oblivious to it, even for something this egregious.

"Think about Friends, for example- just how realistic is it for the groups to have almost no friends of any other race? In New York?"

I dunno about this, I think it actually is quite realistic, that white people have mostly (or almost exclusively) white friends, what's unrealistic is you'd think NY has like 3 black people after watching the show.

I saw this ad a while ago and was just shocked. It's interesting that they changed the body posture of the "Indian" overseer -- he looks less authoritative/smug and more hapless.

as there nobody involved in this marketing campaign (white, black, or otherwise) that at least pointed out the racial overtones?

Are they bowing, or getting ready to sprint? To be fair, my first thought was the latter.

bytewords, butterchicken, there is no argument for this being "unintentionally racist" or "not racist because the stereotypes are true!" The first excuse is just that -- an excuse. Intentional or not, a racist representation is a racist representation, and if Intel's ad team has these ideas so deeply embedded in their psyche, then I think they should reinvest in sensitivity training. As for the "look at all those fast, shoe-less Kenyans -- black people sure are fast!" stereotype -- this is STILL a racist argument. The ad is stupid and offensive. One would wish they had some kind of diversity committee to help them avoid gaffes like this. I'm honestly surprised that both of your reactions are, "But that's true!" If they wanted to use a sprinting metaphor, they should have made that more obvious and varied the ethnicities of participants, and they certainly should not have placed a clean-cut white guy front and center as "overseer" (which is what his position in the ad, and body language, suggest). Honestly, I think what might be helpful for both of you is to go through online archives of depictions and photographs of slavery and the post-slavery Jim Crow South (e.g. sharecropping, chain gangs) and then look at this image again. It is way too similar to those portraits/photos of oppression and struggle for it to be some benign, non racist ad.

As for white people who may have been in charge, I agree they have a responsibility as well, but it's a pretty tall expectation for most white persons to have an active knowledge of what may or may not be offensive or have undertones/imagery that clearly is rooted in racist history (from my experience, the only way most whites believe other whites are 'racist' is when they burn a cross, and wearing a pointy white hat). It's a history they don't share, so it's not surprising for them to be somewhat oblivious to it, even for something this egregious.

One would wish they had some kind of diversity committee to help them avoid gaffes like this.

But Camille, I would add that this committee should be an external, 3rd party. No one internal to the company could provide an honest appraisal, especially on 'racial sensitivity' lines, to sqwak about anything is to basically say to your boss 'you're a racist' No one wants that kind of heat, especially if you're a person of color.

One would wish they had some kind of diversity committee to help them avoid gaffes like this.

But Camille, I would add that this committee should be an external, 3rd party

Not to be harsh, but it's a history they DO share, they were just on the more powerful end of things

True. but I meant share in the sense of a common experience.

there's always amd processors....

What would you guys have thought if the bossman had been black too? Would the racist overtones have gone entirely? It strikes me that much of the allusion to a slave ship might have been avoided if the sprinters were just orientated differently.

Still, if this means less people buy Intel then it can only be a good thing

It's funny how in the original color version, the white "master" is crossing his arms and clearly relishing his power over the black subjects... while in the "Desi" version, the man standing in center looks kinda awkward, not at all like he was in charge.

(Maybe the admen assumed that authority comes more naturally to "Whitey"? ;-))

But seriously, it's a very stupid ad...

Wow.....too much coffee everyone? I mean, I am not for racism of any sort...but I don't go trying to "pick it out" of anything I can find. First, most Americans think of folks with African origins when they think of "athlete," it's not racism...we do not require darker folks to play sports and make it one of their primary public persona...it just happened that way. What's more, nearly every winner of any marathon or other "run" that I have ever seen is usually of African descent, if not a visitor from and African nation outright. Second, It appears that the "workers" in the shot are actually just 6 clones of one shot of a runner....perhaps if we did not have "photoshop" and the "miracle" of the digital photographic age, athletes of various races may have been present....but why hire 6 models when you can hire one and make 6 or more out of him with photoshop?

I understand that the ad could be construed as being in poor taste...but on the other hand...the more sensitive (or over-sensitive) we become about such simple forms of communication, the more we box ourselves in, until the point that we will one day not even be able to make reference to anyone's differences from each other without fear of a "Felony Racism" charge.

First, most Americans think of folks with African origins when they think of "athlete," it's not racism...

uhh. yes it is. because of how that image was cultivated, historically, professional sports and entertainment were the only real positions of any kind of power afforded to folks of African origins. Jesse owens competed for the US in the olympics in Berlin, as a big F.U. to German Nazism, only to come back and have as his only job a circus act, running against horses. Racism just doesn't mean you burn a cross and make someone sit in the back of the bus.

Second, It appears that the "workers" in the shot are actually just 6 clones of one shot of a runner....perhaps if we did not have "photoshop" and the "miracle" of the digital photographic age, athletes of various races may have been present....but why hire 6 models when you can hire one and make 6 or more out of him with photoshop?

I dont' get it, are you claiming photoshop called out to the graphic designer and said "duplicate the image, please!"

the more sensitive (or over-sensitive) we become about such simple forms of communication, the more we box ourselves in

box yourselves in? so wait, instead of pointing out clear racist imagery that funnels its way through despite that legalized discrimination is ended, we should harden ourselves to not be affected by such trivial things, right?

Same logic could have been used for the civ. rights movement, blacks were no longer enslaved, sure they had to sit in the back of the bus and eat at different counters, but why box themselves in by saying they're being treated unfairly?

Firstly, we are not "picking out" racism from everything we see. This ad has been on blast on the blogosphere and among civil rights circuits for over a week. This isn't some unique, Sepia Mutiny attempt to try to make everything all about race. It IS racism to think that black=Athlete. If you don't think so, come over to UC Berkeley where a black student can't go to class without someone asking them what team they play for or if they are there because of some athletic scholarship (the underlying assumption being that they could not have gotten into Cal on their academics). Things "didn't just end up that way." Do you seriously think that African Americans and people of African origin became powerhouse athletes in some vacuum because of some special, innate skill? And since when is "the glory of Photoshop and its cost-saving use of the model" an excuse for an offensive ad? Why don't we just illustrate everything with Sambos, that would be cost saving because then we wouldn't have to draw the original image! Ugh, I am ready to tear my hair out.

It's not a matter of being over-sensitive, and since when is sensitivity a bad thing? I seriously question when people argue that being sensitive to diversity somehow stifles communication. What communication? The racist kind? Minority communities do not exist so that people can make ridiculous, sweeping arguments about them and then hide behind the wall of "Oh, the PC-police are stifling my right to express my bigoted, racist stereotypes"?

I'll stop. I'm not trying to be overly combative, but the reason so much latent racism and racist representations continue to be perpetuated, in my opinion, is because we still live in a racist society. It's not always active, pointed-hat wearing racism, and that is why it is so much more insidious.

Ok, am I the only girl who is turned on? ;)

Ok, am I the only girl who is turned on? ;)

by the guys shoes?

Ok, am I the only girl who is turned on? ;)

by the massah, or the sl@ves?

Oh, also, from Abhi's link (via the picture):

Intel is not just promoting insensitive images, it's also leading a signature drive for a California ballot measure that would eliminate class action lawsuits over civil rights issues. Intel's board of directors have been sent 25,000 faxes calling upon the company to withdraw that pending ballot measure. You can add your voice here.

I think people are overreacting. It seems racist once you interpret as blacks bowing to the white master, but they are not dressed as slaves or as butlers, aren't they? When I first looked at the ad, it seemed like they wanted to say that your PC with a core 2 duo is like having several professional runners doing their thing (threads). I guess having white, chinese, hispanic runners would make it more politically correct, but the fact is that most professional runners are in fact black. Same thing would happen if they did an analogy with the NBA.

With so much explicit racism going on, it is a pity that people get upset by racism stemmed from subjective interpretation. There is absolutely no motivation for a company like Intel to engage in racist ads, imaginary or otherwise.

I guess you can interpret the ad as saying: look at the nerdy white/indian, and look at the cool black athletes. Still racist, uh? :)

Intel is not just promoting insensitive images, it's also leading a signature drive for a California ballot measure that would eliminate class action lawsuits over civil rights issues.

by the massah, or the sl@ves?

Well, let's see, six cut, black men and a nerdy white boy who plays with computers... What's a girl to think about that one?

The ad should of course have a woman in the center, but judging from all the comments that would be sensory overload.

-D

I think it's a case of colourblind mediocrity. Advertising is a funny business. Everything gets analysed to death while the cage is left open for the 500 lb gorilla to waltz out.

Well, let's see, six cut, black men and a nerdy white boy who plays with computers... What's a girl to think about that one?

not supposed to think anything. i was curious...

i try to put together mental images of regular SM commenters based on comments....see how close they are to my mental images at the meetups.

can anybody from CA inform a bit more on this issue? it sounds very interesting, and is this because intel has had more than one such case filed against it? on the face of it, it seems like this would actually be illegal, but i'm not familiar with the area of class action suits...

Like what, puli?

Intel is not just promoting insensitive images, it's also leading a signature drive for a California ballot measure that would eliminate class action lawsuits over civil rights issues. Intel's board of directors have been sent 25,000 faxes calling upon the company to withdraw that pending ballot measure. You can add your voice here.

But this couldn't be about race.

There should be a baiting award so "Divya" could win it, lol.

Maybe someone could symmetrically troll at blackprof.com, under the name "Nia", and express desire for 6 cut, desi men? To thwart the production of subordinated desi masculinity in the american public, bwahahahaha.

thanks, camille!

When they come out of the blocks wouldn't they crash headlong into each other? Says something about the processor. This ad is a classic- multiple layers of dumb. Offensive to blacks, whites, asians and sprinters...And why aren't there any women in the ad? I'm just saying...

Maybe someone could symmetrically troll at blackprof.com, under the name "Nia", and express desire for 6 cut, desi men? To thwart the production of subordinated desi masculinity in the american public, bwahahahaha.

huh? is it so odd for grls to dig the cut guy? i mean, cmon. thats what 'gym membership' is for....

Ok, sorry, here's another link from the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (CA-based) to the CA Legislature opposing the initiative: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/FTCR-Ltr-LAO_8-7-07.pdf

Also, just to clarify, "but this couldn't be about race" was sarcastic, on my part :)

doesnt intel have a cr@pload of non white employees?

#12-no desh- why are you avoiding apple and verizon? i hope anthropologie and ethan allen are on that 'no buy' list

Same logic could have been used for the civ. rights movement, blacks were no longer enslaved, sure they had to sit in the back of the bus and eat at different counters, but why box themselves in by saying they're being treated unfairly?

Exactly. I hear this argument all the damn time with regard to both race and gender... 'Complaining too much is just defeatist, you're only as oppressed as you think you are,' etc. Argh. BTW, I just read a great blog post on this called "How to Suppress Discussions of Racism"-- definitely worth a click.

No one internal to the company could provide an honest appraisal, especially on 'racial sensitivity' lines, to sqwak about anything is to basically say to your boss 'you're a racist' No one wants that kind of heat, especially if you're a person of color.

I'd never ask someone to stick their neck out that way... however, a personal anecdote: at my old job in NYC, when the CEO unveiled the new ad campaign, one of my coworkers, a Latina woman who did not rank particularly highly in the company, raised her hand in the big company meeting to point out that the campaign didn't include any women or people of color, although our (legal industry) clients included large numbers of both. The CEO gave her an evil look and started to defend himself, but one of the owners of the company, a white male lawyer, spoke up and agreed with her publicly, at which point other staff members, especially women, started to agree and speak up. They both won my respect... and the ad campaign was changed.

Beside racism, I have problem with the caption. I don't think there is any correlation between "Multiply the computing performance" and “Maximize the power of your employees”.

"Maximizing the power of your employees" depends on how smart the manager is, not on how nice the office chairs are..or how fast the Intel processor is...
Who ever designed that ad, he/she lacks basic commonsense.

how many desis work in marketing? is it popular amongst the creative desi crowd to do marketing (and i dont mean number crunching marketing research)?

Maybe someone could symmetrically troll at blackprof.com, under the name "Nia", and express desire for 6 cut, desi men? To thwart the production of subordinated desi masculinity in the american public, bwahahahaha.

huh? is it so odd for grls to dig the cut guy? i mean, cmon. thats what 'gym membership' is for....

Well, the whole idea of women desiring/objectifying subordinated black men does have a very long and seriously twisted history in the US...

Man. I wonder what Toni Morrison would have to say about all this.

"Maximizing the power of your employees" depends on how smart the manager is, not on how nice the office chairs are..or how fast the Intel processor is...

yeah...but thats how yu generate demand for a product. its the same as axe deoderant adds that say "use our deoderant and girls will have sex with you". off course your brand of deoderant isnt what determines if a grl likes you. but, to create demand, you need to associate your product with success in attaining your goals..

Well, the whole idea of women desiring/objectifying subordinated black men does have a very long and seriously twisted history in the US...

objectifying is fun...generally...

in fact...im objectifying everyone....right now....as i speak..

is it popular amongst the creative desi crowd to do marketing (and i dont mean number crunching marketing research)?

it's not - my brother is in marketing, and he says very few are in marketing, period, much less in pr and ad campaigns. most desi business types go for the finance, and even those in marketing don't really go towards the creative side of it. on the other hand, i guess there are some people who choose a different route - e.g. from graphics - and end up in creative ads. i think it's odd that desis outside s. asia are so narrow in our choice of professions (until now) - when i was working for a desi start-up and we had to choose an indian firm for our ads, the samples they sent us were some of the best i've seen from any country.

There should be a baiting award so "Divya" could win it, lol.

Maybe someone could symmetrically troll at blackprof.com, under the name "Nia", and express desire for 6 cut, desi men? To thwart the production of subordinated desi masculinity in the american public, bwahahahaha.

Dave, you are a total IDIOT. It's just a picture. Do you need me to say, "I've never had sex with a black man?" Well, I have not. Does that make your booh booh feel better?

The main issue I see here is bad marketing. Horribly stupid marketing. And, yes, when I first saw the ad I also took it as sprinters in position to take off. I guess, hence the 'maximize the power' bit. Regardless, Intel should have immediately taken note of the racist undertones (overtones?).

Still, I can't help but think people are waiting for an ad to come out only to scrutinize it to pieces and to essentially create something that never was. I agree that the racist imagery here can be easily deduced, but at the same time an argument can be made as to how/why it is not. One outweighs the other, but still. To draw the conclusion of 'slave ship' is particularly cruel and over-the-top in my opinion.

In terms of the six worker 'clones'...again, I can understand the racist implications here. BUT, to play devil's advocate, the ad says 'multiply computing performance' and I think it's clear that they were conveying this in the most literal way.

Again, not saying it was smart of them to do so, but I find it unreasonable that if there's ever a situation where a black person is placed in any situation subordinately to a white man (employee-employer) it's immediately categorized as racism. However, I definitely think that advertising and marketing companies DO have a responsibility to break the pattern as to set an example of entirely diverse social settings.

Maybe someone could symmetrically troll at blackprof.com, under the name "Nia", and express desire for 6 cut, desi men? To thwart the production of subordinated desi masculinity in the american public, bwahahahaha.

Dave, you are a total IDIOT. It's just a picture. Do you need me to say, "I've never had sex with a black man?" Well, I have not. Does that make your booh booh feel better?

divya amuses me.

Sadly,this disgusting display doesn't surprise me. Time has changed,not people's attitudes towards others!
Last night, I had a conversation about racism in the workplace with a friend who works in IT, he said that he would rather deal with people whowould just come out and be racist if that's what they believe instead of pretending to be tolerant around him and his other desi friends but makes racial jokes in secret.
White people really are stupid when they think they aren't that transparent, that us minorities will be too stupid to get it. These whities have been causing problems and discriminating on others forever, as long as time has gone on, but the main issues is that they are just being more forthcoming about being racist, or are that insensitive and stupid to think that this wouldn't hurt other peoples feelings.they seem to conveniently forget the whole 200 years of slavery here caused by them
and yes I am a racist and a bigot, SO WHAT, whitey isn't the only one who can hate others because of skin color, the club isn't exclusive anymore

however, a personal anecdote: at my old job in NYC, when the CEO unveiled the new ad campaign, one of my coworkers, a Latina woman who did not rank particularly highly in the company, raised her hand in the big company meeting to point out that the campaign didn't include any women or people of color, although our (legal industry) clients included large numbers of both. The CEO gave her an evil look and started to defend himself, but one of the owners of the company, a white male lawyer, spoke up and agreed with her publicly, at which point other staff members, especially women, started to agree and speak up.

A couple of points.

1. This is actually even riskier, because it's so easy to dismiss this person as 'over sensitive' or 'overly PC' about things, if you bring up a concern that a certain ad campaign might be offensive to other minorities, you can at least in part, defer that sensitivity to others, and form it as a risk to the company. For example, someone at intel could have said,

"I don't personally find the ad offensive, but others might, and that might make the company look bad" and point to other instances, ie the A&F chinese shirts, etc...

It could be biting your tongue to a degree, in the interest of saving face.

2. This incident should clearly illustrate white male privilege. It was only when the white male stood up that everyone else followed. In fact, I think had it been a non-white male lawyer owner of the company, he wouldn't have stood up and defended her. Remember the scene in crash? The police chief had wanted to make sure Ryan Phillipes character didn't state 'racism' as a case for wanting a new partner, for a reason - he got to that point most probably by not bringing up any kind of racial divisiveness that may have occured beforehand.

i have a hilarious story to share about my experience in diversity training in corporate america at a very big company. i can't write now but i'll check in later this day and add it. It's like something out of The Office, only it happened to me and it ended well. Meaning, I quit my job because I was essentially black listed for calling out rascism in diversity training.

Sadly,this disgusting display doesn't surprise me. Time has changed,not people's attitudes towards others! Last night, I had a conversation about racism in the workplace with a friend who works in IT, he said that he would rather deal with people whowould just come out and be racist if that's what they believe instead of pretending to be tolerant around him and his other desi friends but makes racial jokes in secret. White people really are stupid when they think they aren't that transparent, that us minorities will be too stupid to get it. These whities have been causing problems and discriminating on others forever, as long as time has gone on, but the main issues is that they are just being more forthcoming about being racist, or are that insensitive and stupid to think that this wouldn't hurt other peoples feelings.they seem to conveniently forget the whole 200 years of slavery here caused by them and yes I am a racist and a bigot, SO WHAT, whitey isn't the only one who can hate others because of skin color, the club isn't exclusive anymore

your a racist. good for you. u must be proud....

Oh, please. [Racism] doesn't have to be intended. It is all the more insidious for being unconscious.

And how exactly do we prove this unconscious racism? I am not saying racism isn't real, just that seeing it everywhere lessens its impact when it actually happens.

Think about Friends, for example- just how realistic is it for the groups to have almost no friends of any other race? In New York? Media creators have a social responsibility to be aware of how their visuals read. Period.

Oh, really? Art, such as it is, now brought to you by a politically correct committee.

Media creators have a responsibility to make money for their employer, and viewers have the freedom not to watch neuron zapping nonsense like Friends.

This incident should clearly illustrate white male privilege. It was only when the white male stood up that everyone else followed. In fact, I think had it been a non-white male lawyer owner of the company, he wouldn't have stood up and defended her.

HMF, I absolutely agree. I can think of a few non-white-male owners who might have had my coworker's back if they'd been present, but even if they had spoken up I don't think they would have gotten the CEO's ear the way the white male owner did. My coworker was brave to speak up, but her speech wasn't 'heard', it didn't 'matter' (to him) until it was backed up with a powerful white male voice. That's why I think it's a particularly revealing incident.

and yes I am a racist and a bigot, SO WHAT, whitey isn't the only one who can hate others because of skin color, the club isn't exclusive anymore

Jenn, standing up against racism doesn't make you a racist, and being pissed off about it isn't the same thing as hate... I mean, maybe you really do mean that, but I read your words to be a reaction against the almost-inevitability of some white person calling you a racist or a bigot because you speak out. Am I right? I don't know you, but I'd hate to think that you actually want to be associated with those terms...

in fact...im objectifying everyone....right now....as i speak..

Time to go objectify Sendhil Ramamurthy... (i kid!) (kind of!)

Time to go objectify Sendhil Ramamurthy... (i kid!) (kind of!)

note to self....look more like Sendhil Ramamurthy...

multiply computing performance and maximize the power of your employees

do people pay attention to racial sensitivity in india? i know in Europe, it is much less on peoples radar (except for apoligizing about naziims and stuff like that)

"massah"-ing

the word of the day..

Oh, really? Art, such as it is, now brought to you by a politically correct committee.

I mean, I am not for racism of any sort...but I don't go trying to "pick it out" of anything I can find.

I'm really sick of hearing how politically correct boots are stomping on everybody's faces every time somebody speaks out against racism or points out that artists can be held responsible for the ideology of their art. Nobody's throwing anybody in the gulag (except for Homeland Security, of course). If you can create art, you can damn well hear criticism of your art. And if you're only making art to make money for your employers, and shilling racist crap is what makes money, is that really worth defending?

I just came across this ad and am amazed that someone in their marketing department could believe that this was appropriate. I used to work in marketing (granted it was in the pharma industry), and every print ad would get serious review (in some cases even our General Counsel) before an ad went out. At best, it's grossly irresponsibe, at worst - it's racist.

Oh, really? Art, such as it is, now brought to you by a politically correct committee.

Ha! just got off of reading sarah's link:

3. Argue against straw men
A "straw man argument" occurs when you misrepresent your opponent's position so that it's easier to refute.

Remember: Responding to what your opponent says should always be a last resort. To do so requires the extra effort of reading someone else's words and considering the implications of unfamiliar or uncomfortable thoughts. The discussion will go much faster if you just assume your opponent has said what you want to argue about and respond to that instead.

Examples:

"Do you want to censor an artist's vision?"

"You want people to boycott art unless it's politically correct."

and viewers have the freedom not to watch neuron zapping nonsense like Friends.

And viewers have the freedom to collectively state that is misrepresentative... unless.. oh.. that's being too 'sensitive'

I forwarded this to an (Indian) friend of mine who works for an advertsing agency and she was floored that this made it through the first clearance process--much less all the way through towards publication. The one thing marketing execs are taught is to look at an ad objectively and look for any possible way it can be misconstrued in the eyes of the public.

For those who say it's not racist (not many on here, but plenty on some of the other links provided), they're missing the cultural context behind the opposition. This is a country where not very long ago blacks were kept as slaves by white people. That is a solid part of history that still stands as a thorn in the side of all American's.

After taking some time to really read all about this advertising campaign, I finally see the point Intel was trying to make--although it took some time and eye-squinting for it to sink in. My time-elasped reaction to this ad went as such:

(sees picture for the first time)"Whoa--are those black men bowing to a white slave owner?!"

(looks closer) "No wait, when I look closer I see they're all runners ready to sprint, but then...why are they all black sprinters? Why not mix up the runners with non-black individuals?"

(looks even closer) "Oh wait..I think it's the same black guy photoshopped 6 times over an over again. Was that laziness on the part of the producer?"

(reads public statement by Intel's VP) "Ahh..I see they photoshopped him in an effort to visually represent the multiply computing processes aspect of the add...I get it multiply the runners..."

Any ad that requires that much research and insight on the part of the viewer is an incredibly poorly executed advertisement. Where did these marketing execs go to school??

Dude, HMF, I can't quite parse what you are saying this early in the morning, but I am going to assume you are agreeing with me ... :-)

if they're about to sprint, why would they be facing each other? they would collide. and besides, where would they go? it looks like they're in cubicles. this doesn't make much sense...

oops, i had my brightness set to 0 so it looked like the black men were naked...now i see their running clothes but this sprinting talk still makes little sense.

Sarah: And if you're only making art to make money for your employers, and shilling racist crap is what makes money, is that really worth defending?

It is still worth defending their right to spew poor ad copy. Freedom of speech and all that, y'know. It is equally worth defending your right to say it is racist crap. Otherwise, there will be no arguments, no 'adda', and no SM. See how it all ties in ... :-)

When I saw the Ad, I did not think of a slave ship. I did think if all the athletes were black- why is the office worker white- don't they have black office workers/team leaders/managers etc? On the whole, I would say it's almost never worth it(on the job) for a "black" POC, to ever notice racism. By default "we" are all 100% ideologically behind Jesse Jackson anyway, why give incontrovertible proof of the fact.

Sarah- #64- thanks for the link- priceless. (HMF crush back ON!)

As part of an art exhibit, I wouldn't make a lick of fuss over these two images. In fact, the contrast between the first image featuring a white male and the second featuring a desi male would be a telling commentary on social stratification communicated through art. I'd look at them, go "mmhmmm" and move on.

In reality, the fact that a multinational corporation PAID someone to produce and publish these images is quite another matter. Text aside, does the image communicate something that Intel wants to be associated with? I hope not because I immediately see subjugation and colonization in both. In fact, I sat with my mouth agape for a few moments trying to figure out what the hell the ad was for!

Divya writes "Dave, you are a total IDIOT."
Wow, I'm glad I comment anonymously. I still have a chance for everyone to like me. =)

The sprinters/slaves are the processors. The "you" (manager) is not in the picture at all.

And how exactly do we prove this unconscious racism? I am not saying racism isn't real, just that seeing it everywhere lessens its impact when it actually happens.

And how exactly do we prove this unconscious racism? I am not saying racism isn't real, just that seeing it everywhere lessens its impact when it actually happens.

Maybe we have different understandings of what racism is. I don't think it "just happens" -- I personally think this country is systematically and institutionally racist, and that moments of racist depiction/action simply highlight the underlying, ongoing social problems we have around race. I also don't think that pointing something out as racist then "lessens" the impact of another racist incident. If Don Imus says something bigoted on radio and Intel comes out with a sloppy ad that is, as Aparna eloquently put it, either "grossly incompetent" or "racist", I don't think pointing to both of them being idiotic makes one more or less so.

The fact of the matter, my first reaction when I saw this ad was NOT "oh, sprinters." It was "why are those Black guys bowing down to a white guy? And why do they all look the same? What?" I had to read the ad SEVERAL times to understand the argument they were making, and I still found it offensive.

sarah, loved the link.

kurma, it doesn't really matter what the ad guy meant. Clearly he didn't mean for this to invoke racist imagery. That said, I'm not alone in reading it that way. In this case it's the impact, not the intent, that matters. The intent only drives how much we forgive the ad guy for making a dumb mistake.

"Dude, HMF, I can't quite parse what you are saying this early in the morning, but I am going to assume you are agreeing with me ... :-)"

You should work for the Bush Administration, if you don't already.

(HMF crush back ON!)

Ya kinda lost me, so I'll just assume you agree with me :-)

Ya kinda lost me, so I'll just assume you agree with me :-)

OK ;-)

HMF: You should work for the Bush Administration, if you don't already.

Oof, that was way below the belt.

Camille, sarah: I agree that there is institutionalized racism in the US, but how do you explain some blacks who wrote on the Intel blog that they didn't find it offensive? Are they uneducated/ignorant/unaware of dynamics/history, or don't feel enabled to speak out, or don't perceive the ad as racist? And if there are different opinions/perceptions, then how do we decide what's racist and what's not? If one person finds it racist and the rest don't, does it still make it racist? Sorry if my questions come across as stupid, but I'm genuinely curious to read what you have to say.

If one person finds it racist and the rest don't, does it still make it racist?

Amit, I could round up a random sample of 20 people, and 5 could say they don't find the ad offensive. That doesn't mean that the ad is any less offensive to the other 15, though. That's part of living in a diverse society, yes? :) The color of someone's skin does not validate or invalidate whether or not something's racist (although I do see people use this excuse over and over again to invalidate the claim that something is racist). They could find it inoffensive for any number of reasons -- it doesn't necessarily make them ignorant. I think, in trying to figure out if something is racist, it's useful to think of how it plays to, or does not play to, ideas of racial superiority or primacy. HMF and I have discussed this a lot, actually, and my definition may be more broad than it is for others, but I think racism, as an institution (in the U.S.) actively plays to maintaining a system of white supremacy. That said, anyone of any color could promote that idea or vision. In the context of this ad, it can easily be misread as black men crouching/kneeling before a white "overseer" kinda guy. Again, this was probably not Intel's intent, but the impact is jarring, nonetheless, and such an interpretation certainly plays into a larger system of anti-Black racism.

Your question isn't stupid. :)

I personally think this country is systematically and institutionally racist... The fact of the matter, my first reaction when I saw this ad was NOT "oh, sprinters." It was "why are those Black guys bowing down to a white guy

There you go. Because you assume you live in a country that is systematically and institutionally racist, you immediatly jumped to the conclusion that the ad must be racist. But the fact is: they are dressed as sprinters, and that is the starting position of a sprinter. Oh, and the majority of sprinters in high competition are black. I looked at the ad, and immediately associated the sprinters as processing elements.

I looked at the ad, and immediately associated the sprinters as processing elements.

WOW - I have never seen this ad - guess they pulled it, but that made me rather angry and disappointed at the same time. If they had mixed the guys in the track-starter position, then I guess it would have been better, I dunno.

Thanks for posting and sharing.

I think it rather interesting since DELL tries to boast and promote diversity.

Looks like the REAL DELL "stood up"

No CiscoKid, I did not jump to this conclusion because I "assume" this country is systematically racist. I perceive the ad as racist because I am near-sighted (literally), and without reading the caption the ad looks remarkably like a photo of a slave ship, or of share-croppers kneeling in the fields. There is a clear racist interpretation to this ad, whether or not you saw these men as sprinters or as some other representative symbol.

If they're sprinters, there is a racist assumption that black people are like animals -- identical and physically "powerful" and sooo fast. Also, can we please take a moment to recognize the ignorance and racism associated with the idea that Black sprinters are somehow genetically hard-wired to be better sprinters? (Please see HMF's comment on Jesse Owens for context around why this could be considered offensive).

If they're seen as something besides sprinters, it is still offensive because of the positioning and body language of each character. I am not some crazy wing nut who looks for racist depictions as I walk around the street. I'm someone who, like everyone else, is conditioned by my environment and respond based on previous experiences or exposure -- including exposure to historic photography and portraits of slavery and the American South (in the context of unequal black/white relations).

There is ample social psychology work that's been done on this (unconscious racism).

Camille, I am not disputing that unconscious racism exists, merely that if we are to blame someone - Intel, their ad agency, the guy who created the image - we should come up with a standard of proof of what constitutes unconscious racism and what does not.

I also don't think that pointing something out as racist then "lessens" the impact of another racist incident.

In an ideal world that would be right. But, practically speaking, some racist incidents provoke more outrage than others. It would probably be more productive to focus the public's limited attention span on those incidents than the less obvious ones. And before the idealists start a mob looking for me, let me say that any instance of racism is equally deplorable. This is just an attempt to be a little realistic in the fight against racism.

The fact of the matter, my first reaction when I saw this ad was NOT "oh, sprinters." It was "why are those Black guys bowing down to a white guy? And why do they all look the same? What?" I had to read the ad SEVERAL times to understand the argument they were making, and I still found it offensive.

To add my anecdotal account to the mix: My reactions were, in order -
1. More core, more processes, more threads. Old news.
2. Those black dudes look really ripped. Shit, I haven't been out running for ages. Shit, I had a pizza for dinner again.
3. Why do tech guys have to be in wrinkled khakis all the time. Hmmm, maybe time to upgrade (or, wash) my trusty pair of jeans.

Racism did not occur to me after I saw the posting on SM.

It is still worth defending their right to spew poor ad copy. Freedom of speech and all that, y'know. It is equally worth defending your right to say it is racist crap. Otherwise, there will be no arguments, no 'adda', and no SM. See how it all ties in ... :-)

Totally different issue. I'm not arguing that it should be ILLEGAL or that anyone should be thrown in jail for this ad! I'll defend their right under the law to say stupid bullshit, absolutely. I'm criticizing your decision to defend its worth. It is possible to speak out against something you think is wrong without impinging upon freedom of speech, you know. To refresh your memory:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean that nobody has the right to criticize your speech, or to apply social pressure to marginalize speech that is racist.

Sarah: I'm criticizing your decision to defend its worth.

I re-read my first post and don't quite see where I defended the ad's worth. I just pointed out how a racially offensive image may have come about as a result of non-racially motivated decisions and incompetence. I am curious now how exactly you parsed my post.

No CiscoKid, I did not jump to this conclusion because I "assume" this country is systematically racist. I perceive the ad as racist because I am near-sighted (literally), and without reading the caption the ad looks remarkably like a photo of a slave ship, or of share-croppers kneeling in the fields. There is a clear racist interpretation to this ad, whether or not you saw these men as sprinters or as some other representative symbol.

Camille, can I just say that your posts rock? :)

Butterchicken/Ciscokid, I think your responses illustrate a dynamic that's really common among white Americans when dealing with racism against African Americans-- the immediate defensive 'but I didn't mean it that way, you're just oversensitive!' reaction. I think that if there are enough people who find this racist that the question has been brought up, it's incumbent upon those who didn't see the ad as racist the first time to take a second look and ask why so many people are offended by this ad. (And yes, I agree with Camille that if you're familiar with images from slavery, this strikes an immediate chord.) I don't think doing that a matter of censorship, just a sign of a genuine attempt at solidarity with African Americans, and general courtesy.

People are over-reacting.

That's right Sarah! Preach it! Who would know better than you about the troubles of being a minority?

Oh, wait, you don't. You are completely in the dark. It's very easy for you as a white person to sit there and tell us how we should react, because you aren't a brown man or woman trying to get ahead in a white world. I bet that latin american woman is not headed for middle management anytime soon, in fact I bet your respect is the only thing she got out of speaking up, and that's not much.

I'm all for minorities taking a stand, but because we want to, not because some liberal poser white person told us we should. That's just another form of the same type of oppression.

Oh, really? Art, such as it is, now brought to you by a politically correct committee.

Media creators have a responsibility to make money for their employer, and viewers have the freedom not to watch neuron zapping nonsense like Friends.

I'm sorry if I misread you, butter chicken. I did read it as a defense of commercial art in general, rather than this ad specifically.

That's right Sarah! Preach it! Who would know better than you about the troubles of being a minority?

Oh, wait, you don't. You are completely in the dark. It's very easy for you as a white person to sit there and tell us how we should react, because you aren't a brown man or woman trying to get ahead in a white world. I bet that latin american woman is not headed for middle management anytime soon, in fact I bet your respect is the only thing she got out of speaking up, and that's not much.

I'm all for minorities taking a stand, but because we want to, not because some liberal poser white person told us we should. That's just another form of the same type of oppression.

So white people should sit quietly and not oppose racism? Would that be better?

Look, I'm not trying to tell anybody how to live, and if you think that I have I'm genuinely sorry. If you can tell me precisely what I said that offended you (if it's not just that I'm white), or if others on this board have serious criticisms of what I'm saying here, I'll listen seriously to what you have to say about it. But what makes you think I'm a liberal poser? I'm not an antiracist because I think it's cool, I'm one because racism has had a huge impact on my life and the lives of the people I love, and because I don't think women or sexual minorities or working class people (all of which I am) will ever be free unless we can end racism. It's in my own self-interest to fight racism, and I'm not going to stop.

My Latina coworker, by the way, was in fact promoted to middle management, though she eventually left the company to go to law school. And as I said in that post, I would never ask or expect someone to stick their neck out in that way; that was her decision, and she thought it was worth doing.

This still doesn't exonerate the ad. On another blog which posted this image, one commentator summed up the message as: "Intel: it's like having the power of six n*gg*rs in your processor." There is still racial coding present in the ad.

kurma, it doesn't really matter what the ad guy meant. Clearly he didn't mean for this to invoke racist imagery. That said, I'm not alone in reading it that way. In this case it's the impact, not the intent, that matters. The intent only drives how much we forgive the ad guy for making a dumb mistake.

Sure. I too think the picture (in itself, even without reference to its creator) is racist. Anway, just trying to make sure we're calling it racist for the right reasons. For instance, I read a comment upthread about "what does it say about how employees are treated...". It's not about that. It's more along the lines of what Areem quotes in #96. And it seemed like dude in khakis = manager was continuing as the working assumption of the thread...

I would forgive the ad-maker for coming up with a picture like that. But I wouldn't easily forgive him/her for failing to see what impact it would have. Is this person a professional living in present-day America or has the ad-business been outsourced? I also wouldn't forgive the company higher-ups who decided it's OK. Were these people thinking at all? Anyway, the one redeeming point is that they withdrew it at least when they heard the outrage rather than go with some lame - "We didn't mean it"/"We don't find it offensive" therefore you should not.

If you can't be civil, don't comment.

Everyone is welcome to read, lurk and speak here. There are ways to voice disagreement or concerns which don't involve being disrespectful.

hillside, I really think that was an unnecessary attack. Particularly because sarah is not alone in saying this was racist -- how many other (brown) posters felt the same? A large enough number that your lashing out at her seems strange and unwarranted.

sarah, back atcha :)

butter chicken, Jack Glaserover the Goldman School does some really interesting work around metrics re: "unconscious racism" and social psychology. Harvard also has that great online test and series of papers. Let me see if I can dig up the references (although they're both referenced in Malcolm Gladwell's blink).

Oh, and with respect to "ideal world," are you referencing the idea of political capital (i.e. that you can leverage public opinion in 1-2 instances, but if you do it continually you start wearing out grassroots support)? I'm just trying to understand :)

I'm sorry if I misread you, butter chicken. I did read it as a defense of commercial art in general, rather than this ad specifically.

Alas, you did misread me.

Butterchicken/Ciscokid, ... the immediate defensive 'but I didn't mean it that way, you're just oversensitive!' reaction ...

.. and here too. My first reaction to the ad was not this-is-racist, not because I don't believe racism does not exist in America (hey, I am brown after all), but because the technology cues overwhelmed the slave-ship cues in the half second I looked at it. I do understand, in an analytical sense, how so many are offended by the image.

Look, I'm not trying to tell anybody how to live, and if you think that I have I'm genuinely sorry.

hmmm? why apologize sarah? You tell me how to live, I tell you. go for it. after all, when you choose for yourself, you choose for others, to paraphrase sartre. so there's no way out. boss away.

So white people should sit quietly and not oppose racism? Would that be better?

Sarah, have you heard of Tim Wise?

But, practically speaking, some racist incidents provoke more outrage than others.

but the criteria for determining which incidents to fight against shouldn't be whether intel intended it or not, it should be a concensus as to the severity and damage. I think online discussion & email campaigns are an appropriate response, that this kind of behavior will not go unchecked.

An all out boycott of intel? well, the intel core 2 duo is used in the new iMac. They'd have to pull a Kramer for me to even consider boycotting that.

My goodness, I can't spell for crap.

butterchicken, no worries. It's just different cues based on what we're exposed to that frames how we interpret the image. :)

kurma, thanks! I'm with you, especially re: the favorite response these days, "Sorry if we hurt your feelings" (which is, in my opinion, a non-apology. At least Intel had the decency to issue a full apology). It doesn't seem like it was some intentional moment of bigotry, but it was stupid.

Again, I just wanted to apologize to all if my tone comes off combative -- I don't mean it to be. I think vehement and calm (is that an oxymoron?) is what I'm going for :)

Fair enough, butterchicken. I saw the "but I didn't mean it that way, you're just oversensitive!" dynamic play out twice today in my office (no, I wasn't involved) so maybe I just have my hackles up today!

Still trying to figure out where I bossed, though... hillside, if you're going to attack anonymously like that, a quote or two might help. To be honest, I was afraid of precisely this reaction when I de-lurked on this site. I wasn't sure if a white ally would be welcomed or seen as an interloper in a brown space.

Oh, and with respect to "ideal world," are you referencing the idea of political capital (i.e. that you can leverage public opinion in 1-2 instances, but if you do it continually you start wearing out grassroots support)?

Camille, that sums up nicely what I was hinting at.

regarding white privilege in the workplace. POC need to step up and grow some balls. if you think something is racist, say it. if you get fired your probably better off anyway. you can always get another job. this isn't cuba. this economy is so dynamic there are always opportunites. illegal immigrants come here and start their own business (contracting, cutting lawns, flooring, etc) so you can too.

stop being so afraid. learn for the jews on wall st who outplayed their wasp oppressors at their own game.

HMF, I'm getting a 404 when I follow your link...

To be honest, I was afraid of precisely this reaction when I de-lurked on this site. I wasn't sure if a white ally would be welcomed or seen as an interloper in a brown space.

One reaction doesn't speak for everyone. We welcome all allies or interested parties. And I'd say that no matter what color you are. I intervened after I saw his comment, because I wanted to prevent precisely this reaction in you.

sarah, don't leave. I think hillside's reaction was unwarranted and certainly inappropriate. And I like Tim Wise (hat-tip, HMF). And I like your commentary. Stick around :)

An all out boycott of intel? well, the intel core 2 duo is used in the new iMac. They'd have to pull a Kramer for me to even consider boycotting that.

I agree that this is an enormous, up-to-here, goof, but at most it is a condemnation of the racial blindness and deafness of their marketing and ad copy guys. No small thing of course, but what really bothers me also is their stance against the civil rights class action suits. And how the hell does a corporation get involved in ballot initiatives, anyway? Would appreciate if anyone who knows more posts some background and details.

POC need to step up and grow some balls. if you think something is racist, say it. if you get fired your probably better off anyway. you can always get another job.

Ah. the individual idealist. It's not that simple. A lot of people don't have this luxury, the only recourse is somehow framing it to be bad for the *companies* image. Not any kind of moral requirements for erasing racism.

POC do have to do this job you speak of, they always have and always will. But this doesn't absolve white responsibility, and the race card many whites play of 'denial'

learn for the jews on wall st who outplayed their wasp oppressors at their own game

They also did this by slowly but surely becoming white. most of their early businesses were in black neighborhoods.

Thank you, guys! I don't want to make this about me, but I do appreciate it and have felt welcomed by the vast majority of SM'ers. I'm not about to leave :)

Googled Tim Wise and found the site... thank you, HMF! This looks really good.

If they're sprinters, there is a racist assumption that black people are like animals

So, blacks should not be shown in advertisments as athletes because it is racist. And why? Because in your mind, athletes are animals. The prejudice seems to be on your side. People glorify athletes, it requires a lot of preparation and hardwork. And they earn a lot more money than the nerd standing there.

I wasn't sure if a white ally would be welcomed or seen as an interloper in a brown space.

Sarah,

Please don't let one obnoxious comment chase you away.Your perspective is always interesting and I am sure the majority here do not consider any non-brown an interloper in any way, shape or form

I think online discussion & email campaigns are an appropriate response, that this kind of behavior will not go unchecked.

spot on.

An all out boycott of intel? well, the intel core 2 duo is used in the new iMac.

Amen!

So, blacks should not be shown in advertisments as athletes because it is racist. And why? Because in your mind, athletes are animals. The prejudice seems to be on your side. People glorify athletes, it requires a lot of preparation and hardwork. And they earn a lot more money than the nerd standing there.

CiscoKid, the sportswriter Dave Zirin writes a lot about just this subject... how black athletes are both glorified and treated like animals at the same time, sometimes by the same people. He's incisive and quite funny, you might enjoy checking out his archives.

And how the hell does a corporation get involved in ballot initiatives, anyway? Would appreciate if anyone who knows more posts some background and details.

CiscoKid, at this point I'm not going to continue to entertain a discussion with you if you are going to continually misquote and misrepresent what I've written. I do not think athletes are animals, but thanks for trying to attribute vitriolic and hateful ideas to me. That's really mature and helpful for a constructive dialogue. [and lest that be misinterpreted, that was sarcasm]

"Googled Tim Wise and found the site... thank you, HMF! This looks really good."

well, i did link directly to his site, to save you that effort.. but you're welcome. In my view, he's one of the most eloquent white anti-racists out there. There's a great debate of his against Dinesh D'souza, where, IMO, he more or less makes mincemeat of him.

I'm just wondering if an enterprising, whistle-blowing kind of employee actually passed this ad to shine light on Intel's class-action lawsuit regarding civil rights, knowing very well how it would play out....

chachaji, is your question about this specific incident, or corporations in general getting involved in politics? If latter, then The Corporation is a good start. Excellent movie.

sarah, no need to leave. Your comments and perspective are welcome.

They also did this by slowly but surely becoming white. most of their early businesses were in black neighborhoods.

becming white? do you mean like barcak obama and cory booker not being black enough? In order to be successful, we may have to drop aspects of our culture that have held us back, though these things may have become intricately linked to our culture, like say nehruvian socialism and IST. but that's white privilege, they are allowed to adopt any behavior without their authenticity being questioned. we should demand the same privilege.

now goldman sachs and lehman were set up because jews couldn't make partner at morgan or drexel or kidder (very telling that the last 2 are no longer around). i'm not familiar with them doing business in black neighborhoods but i know they did business with other jews to start. by becoming white, if you mean they mimicked some of the business practices of the more successful wasp firms, they yeah, they became white. nothing wrong with that, the laws of economics don't change with ethnicity. cultural imperialism works both ways. all ideas are open to colonisation.

come one hmf, where's the malcolm x in you.

I think that if there are enough people who find this racist that the question has been brought up

Yes, I notice the bandwagon effect. I wonder how many people thought it was a racist attack before actually reading that you are suppose to interpret the black sprinters (forget what they are dressing) as black slaves.

Divya,
Thought of your advice to "Desi boyz" way back when when I read this:

Courtship compliance: The effect of touch on women's behavior

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/%20content~content=a778855605~db=all~jumptype=rss

Courtship compliance: The effect of touch on women's behavior

i should think through these things more...geez...

chachaji, is your question about this specific incident, or corporations in general getting involved in politics?

Not politics in general, but specifically ballot initiatives, and this one in particular. One of the reasons ballot initiatives came along was that the traditional legislative process was thoroughly dominated by lobbyists - mostly for corporations. So I was looking for some enlightenment on how Intel, of all companies would get in on this one, and what the background to the initiative was, and how they got involved.

I like Manju's approach best. I don't think jewish economic success in America had much to do with becoming white, HMF. If anything, I think the order was reversed (first the economic success, then applying that economic power for social success). Consider desi americans in contrast to a variety of ethnic whites -desis are probably outperforming most of them. Same with some other groups --and yet those ethnic whites have access to whiteness privilege that some of us do not. So I think economic success and social success in America are separable.

well, i did link directly to his site, to save you that effort.. but you're welcome.

desis are probably outperforming most of them. Same with some other groups --and yet those ethnic whites have access to whiteness privilege that some of us do not

i think it takes a few generations off being rich someplace for economic success to translate into social success. implant the idea in peoples heads. these guys are f-cking rich.

HMF, for some reason your link went back to SM, as follows: http://www.sepiamutiny.com/www.timwise.org, which is prob why sarah had to google him :)

He didn't put in the "http".

but that's white privilege, they are allowed to adopt any behavior without their authenticity being questioned. we should demand the same privilege.

The problem is.. white privilege only exists when there's someone else to be "privileged over". The jews were able to turn that animosity against the "other" onto blacks and other non-whites.

i'm not familiar with them doing business in black neighborhoods but i know they did business with other jews to start.

http://jewishtribalreview.org/exploit.htm

if you mean they mimicked some of the business practices of the more successful wasp firms, they yeah, they became white.

no, I mean they were no longer 'othered' because another group assumed that role.

I do not think athletes are animals, but thanks for trying to attribute vitriolic and hateful ideas to me.

But that is exactly what you are doing. You are assuming that other people associate being an athlete to an animal, so that when they see a black as an athlete, then automatically think of him as an animal. That is why you said the ad is racist. If you don't like people to attribute such ideas to you, then you should not assume others think that way. Granted, there is a small minority of people who think blacks, indians and other non-whites are inferior than whites, but I don't think this ad will make any difference.

Next thing you know, watching NBA is also racist... because people will create this dispecable stereotype that most basketball players are black. And non-racists will look at this Intel ad, and create this stereotype that most sprinters and professional athletes are in fact black... and forget all the great white sprinters out there.

CiscoKid, that's not what I wrote, nor is it what I was doing. It is a stretch, at the least, to argue that because I said that there is a historic depiction of African Americans as "dumb brutes", particularly vis-a-vis sports, that by extension I think African Americans a) fulfill that stereotype, or b) that being an athlete fulfills that stereotype. As I understand it, you are trying to attribute both (a) and (b) to comments that I made. Reread what I posted, then read HMF's comment on Jesse Owens and horse races. Then read sarah's link, and then please reread my comment one more time and try to understand what I'm arguing. I have a very specific and clear association I'm making; it is not a general comment on the race of athletes and whether or not that somehow implies they are subhuman. This is truly becoming (if it is not already) such a non-conversation at this point. Further, if that is the ONLY comment you took in the litany of reasons I listed for why this ad is racist or has racist interpretations/implications, then at best you're being selective, and at worst you're picking a fight where there is none.

no, I mean they were no longer 'othered' because another group assumed that role

they were othered for a long time. i believe sandy weil (who started his own firm because he was told he wouldn't make partner at drexel) set out to purchase jp morgan as late as the 90's in order to merge it with smith barney. when they rejected him he went around saying "morgan will never sell to a jew." (he eventually bought salomon.)

It was only recently that the jewish/wasp ibank wall of separation has come down, mostly due to globalization and the rise of pure merit specialties (like quant, asset management--vc, hedge funds--as opposed to traditional ibanking which is sales or brokerage), which has bought in a lot of asians as well. when i first started working on wall street in the early '90's, most of my jewish friends still had trepidations about working for morgaan. it was worse in the big law firms, which have a similar history to wall street.

anyway, i think a similar history is playing out for asians in such industries as IT and VC and quant hedge funds. don't know how the alleged exploitation of blacks that you link to fits in the picture thought. is that like the korean grocer thing?

I work at Intel and this ad has definitely been a major embarrasment. However, I am fairly certain that this was an error and not something that should be interpreted as an indication of prevalent racist-insensitivities at the company. Most of us are a bunch of (global) techies and in my many years here I have not witnessed any racial/religious/national-origin insensitivity at Intel. Outside the US Intel currently has major operations in India, Ireland, Malaysia, The Phillipines, Israel, Costa-Rica and many other countries. You have people at Intel working together daily from around the world.

I understand the outcry over this ad and this was something that we (regular Intel employees) have also confronted our senior-managers about.

My request would be for all not to be so quick to judge the character of a company over one ad. Intel is not a racist company.

An all out boycott of intel?

It is a stretch, at the least, to argue that because I said that there is a historic depiction of African Americans as "dumb brutes", particularly vis-a-vis sports, that by extension I think African Americans a) fulfill that stereotype, or b) that being an athlete fulfills that stereotype.

I do apologise for the misunderstanding and I can see why you got upset, but I was trying to make a point: that the ad is racist for you because what you assume people think about athletes. However, in the general case...

1. Athletes have better bodies than computer nerds
2. Athletes earn more money than computer nerds
3. Athletes are more famous than computer nerds

"1. Athletes have better bodies than computer nerds
2. Athletes earn more money than computer nerds
3. Athletes are more famous than computer nerds"

All of this is ancillary to the racist undertones of the message. The idea is the ad connects with racist imagery because:

Black people are only good for:

1. entertaining us by singing and dancing
2. entertaining us by playing sports
3. are strong and powerful but don't have the ability to lead, hence need a bill gates m*therfucker telling them what to do.

I bet the "black" employee at Intel who was not offended was either (1) asked to write the post by a boss, (2) clarence thomas's nephew, or (3) white.

This ad is pretty ridiculous but as other people have mentioned, some departmental power dynamics can create strange subcultures where stupid things happen . . . or the head of marketing had his/her first job interning for Karl Rove.
(appeal to our base! only whites and some asians buy computers . . .)

Sorry, I should have made that last link clickable. I guess if there were no minorities on the Intel ad committee, there were no women on this one.

CiscoKid, no worries, I'm not upset. I just felt we were going in circles (hence the "this is moving towards a non conversation" comment). Again, my tone is intended to be calm and vehement, not upset or sarcastic (unless otherwise noted). I think HMF explained much better than I did -- the point re: athletes is ancillary, and for me, this was honestly the second-level of analysis. My primary reaction had nothing to do with the fact that these were representations of sprinters, and everything to do with the physical posturing depicted in the ad. Again, I don't think Intel has some crazy racist scheme -- I think they put out an ad that can be justifiably read as racially offensive. I'm glad that they withdrew the ad and apologized, and I hope they think twice next time they go forward with print ads.

chachaji, a very long follow up on the initiative process is forthcoming. I'll try to keep it to under 500 words :)

chachaji, a very long follow up on the initiative process is forthcoming. I'll try to keep it to under 500 words :)

Camille, look forward to it. And no hurry, of course. If you think it makes more sense to do so, you could also email it instead of posting.

Black people are only good for:

1. entertaining us by singing and dancing
2. entertaining us by playing sports
3. are strong and powerful but don't have the ability to lead, hence need a bill gates m*therfucker telling them what to do.

Well, sort of to clarify, its because these racist stereotypes exist, the ad can be read as very offensive and playing off racist undertones. The ad isn't racist because of some general assumption about what athletes are like, its because of a historical perception about what black men can and cannot do.

Also, in the advert, running is supposed to be a metaphor, not taken literally. So having the runners be multi-ethnic, but still ripped would serve the same metaphor purpose.

I bet the "black" employee at Intel who was not offended was either (1) asked to write the post by a boss, (2) clarence thomas's nephew, or (3) white.

So what you're saying is that any statement that doesn't agree your idea will be rejected. Why would you assume that the black people on the same forum who criticized the ad were indeed black, and going by your logic, not white bleeding-heart liberals? :)

I hope this teaches corporate america a lesson about using something other than sex to sell product.

The ad isn't racist because of some general assumption about what athletes are like, its because of a historical perception about what black men can and cannot do.

So the bottom line is that people are dumb enough in this day and age (unlike you and me, who know racism is nonsense) to understand that blacks can too be computer nerds because of this ad, uh?. It all boils down to how mature we think people around us are. If the vast majority of people are smart enough, like you and me, then this ad is really a non-issue, isn't it? If they are ignorant, then I guess shows like the Simpsons and the characterisation of Apu must be really racist...

Perhaps one day we can move beyond race, and become less paranoid about it.

I just wonder, HMV, if blacks cannot appear as athletes in advertisements because of historical perception about what they can and cannot do, can you give me a list of five situations in which they could appear without causing such outrage in advertisement? :)

So the bottom line is that people are dumb enough in this day and age (unlike you and me, who know racism is nonsense) to understand that blacks can too be computer nerds because of this ad, uh?

You're not thinking, let's take it out of the racial context, because people like you seem to think you 'got a handle' on this 'racism nonsense' but just saying 'well, duh all people are alike and a black person would look just as acceptable as a nobel physicist as he would a crack dealer in media portrayal'

So consider this example, lets say I went to the toilet factory, got a brand spanking new toilet bowl, never been used, completely washed and sterilized with the finest biodegradable cleaning products, clean as a whistle, then I poured lemonade in it, freshly squeezed, from the finest lemons on the earth. And you saw all of this, so you know the toilet is clean, that it's lemonade, freshly squeezed, etc...

then I asked you to drink the lemonade out of the toilet.. would you do it? would you do it without hesitation?

If you're sitting there with folded arms thinking, "hell yea I would, whats the big deal" you're either not human, or not honest. The answer of course is, yes you would hesitate, if you would do it at all, and why? Because the image of a yellow liquid in a toilet is connected to something else in your mind. That connection cannot be simply erased by saying, "well it's nonsense" even if you logically know it to be true. Are the neurons firing yet?

And I, someone who has studied this effect, will admit that even today, if I was walking down a dark street in NYC, and saw a black man in the distance, would consider crossing the street much more readily than if I saw a white man. Why? because it's 'natural' to feel more threatened. This "natural" response takes effort to deprogram. So please, don't go on and on spouting what's 'nonsense' without understanding how it came about in the first place.

I just wonder, HMV, if blacks cannot appear as athletes in advertisements because of historical perception about what they can and cannot do,

This is a straw man. I already said if the athletes were multi ethnic, hell just throw in a single token white guy, it wouldn't be as susceptible to charges of racism.

But again in this case, it was the image of them bowing down, ie subservient to a less physically strong, white man. Which means the only assumption is, as the leader he's mentally stronger - again a commonly held stereotype against blacks, do you think Michael Jordan [ clearly a black man of considerable power] was as accepted in the manager/owner circle as he was as a player?

HMF:

I've been reading that creepy website you linked to demonstrate jewish exploitation of blacks. You may have inadvertently linked to a hate site. i mean, stuff like "the jews war on mel gibson" etc and they even link to a this book that seems to "explain" the holocaust as a result of jewish over representation among elite and wealthy. I bring this up, because the bigotry that asians face in the US is likely to parallel anti-semitism, like in affirmative action echoing quotas against jews.

Those men are not all black. Not at all.

The sprinter ad is weird looking and showed bad judgement though it was probably more in the line of Leni Reifenstahl loving the
36 Olympians and the Nubians with her camera, than implications of slavery.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/leni_riefenstahl.htm.

I know some whites who expressed some quite precious opinions on the WaMu ad, and similar tv commercials. WaMu features a bunch of white bank-manager types being rounded up and contained, while young black clientele take over and lecture to them. Unlike the sprinter Intel ad, this ad is deliberate and obviously targeting one audience and de-targeting another one for reasons of their own. I've known whites who won't do business with that company because of the ads. I doubt this is a black owned company (or Indian owned) so I am not sure of their reasons.he Why would a banking company deliberately alienate the customers with the most money and credit? I can understand reaching out, but why burn bridges? Who gains? Intel is lucky they are not directly in the finance business.
But then I can never figure out why finance companies do what they do, even tho I'm initforthemoney.

Here are some more recent ads, even more racially offensive and from a much more surprising source -- Unicef (Germany). Is there an epidemic of bad judgement among ad agency execs these days?

CiscoKid, it's about HOW the black athletes are portrayed in this ad - bent down, kneeling, almost "bowing" towards the manager guy. The racist connotations are there. If Intel had shown black athletes, I dunno, performing/playing sports as a metaphor for productivity and excellence, this would have been a non-issue (since many companies have done exactly that).

Sure, this ad can be ambiguous at first, but that's how all these ads are. They push the racist imagery to the tipping point, where it's still a bit murky and subtle - these ad guys aren't dumb. They're not going to show a black guy kissing a white man's feet. By leaving it close enough to the threshold, they're able to point the finger back at you and say, "Hey, it's not meant to be racist, why all the drama - YOU'RE the one who's seeing race in everything!"

You guys are way too forgiving of the ad folks/Intel :) This whole debacle reminds me of the less-subtly-racist Sony "White is Coming" ad that was displayed and later pulled in Europe. Personally, I think these guys know that these types of ad will create controversy and hence more publicity, even if they pull the ad later. It gets people talking.

WaMu features a bunch of white bank-manager types being rounded up and contained, while young black clientele take over and lecture to them.

Hahaha, this description made me laugh :) initforthemoney (a name which fits nicely with the theme of the WaMu ad!), the ad features a bunch of older white men who are supposed to be very rich and powerful - basically, the guys who control corporate America. And they're not really being "contained", they're just kinda standing together. The black guy (the ad I saw only featured one) is the WaMu spokesman, and he's basically chastising the guys for being greedy and overcharging bank consumers.

The white guys in the ad are definitely stereotypical, for sure, but considering the amount of power these kinda guys have in this country, I think they can afford to take a few punches now and then! That ad really doesn't scream "domination."

then I asked you to drink the lemonade out of the toilet.. would you do it? would you do it without hesitation?

Morarji Desai would.

I think the Indian version is Okay, they look like runners. But the white - black version does seem to have racist "overtones." But what is with the shitty background and desks? It looks liks this ad was made in India becuase that is what an office in India would look like. So I guess the marketing department in India for Intel must be responsible. And where exactly was this ad show to the public? I don't remember seeing this while in the USA. But overall I think it will seem racist to Americans and maybe not as racist to others.

You're not thinking, let's take it out of the racial context, because people like you seem to think you 'got a handle' on this 'racism nonsense'

I don't agree with you, and therefore I am not thinking. Nice.

then I asked you to drink the lemonade out of the toilet.. would you do it? would you do it without hesitation? If you're sitting there with folded arms thinking, "hell yea I would, whats the big deal" you're either not human, or not honest. The answer of course is, yes you would hesitate

My hesitation would come only to accept a lemonade from a lunatic who makes it from a toilet.

And I, someone who has studied this effect, will admit that even today, if I was walking down a dark street in NYC, and saw a black man in the distance, would consider crossing the street much more readily than if I saw a white man. Why? because it's 'natural' to feel more threatened.

You are obviously unaware that you are projecting your prejudices to others, and saying it is only natural to feel that way. At night, I don't automatically feel safer when I see a white than a black. You get past this stage, once you learn to see other cues from something as superficial as race. It is not politically correct, it is just common sense. But then again, living in a multi-racial area helps you achieve that.

Popular culture glorifies atheletes, and mocks nerds. Look at countless movies if you have any doubt. I find it ludicrous to say that blacks are considered animals to entertain us, considering that whites too dominate other sports and are glorified as well in this process.

CiscoKid, it's about HOW the black athletes are portrayed in this ad - bent down, kneeling, almost "bowing" towards the manager guy.

That is actually a good point. But that is the starting position of a sprinter, isn't it?
I can understand that people get upset when they see this ad, specially after explaining the "racist" conotations (it was not my first impression, and wouldn't be my second one either). I also don't think it shows blacks as underpriviledged, because people have the perception that atheletes have higher salaries than computer nerds. I think maybe we are projecting our desi ideal of a succesful person: highly educated as opposed to an athlete.

I've been reading that creepy website you linked to demonstrate jewish exploitation of blacks. You may have inadvertently linked to a hate site.

Unfortunately, HMF's website reference does appear in the hate directory. The website is down, but looking at the google cache version one can understand why: it has several articles on the jewish conspiracy to exploit other ethnic groups, which is the foundation of your basic anti-semitism.

I've been reading that creepy website you linked to demonstrate jewish exploitation of blacks.

After looking at it, I can't say I completely disagree with you, although I will mention, it's very subjective what's considered 'hate speech' and what's not. Most of the 'Jewish exploitation of black' literature comes from the nation of islam and other such sites, which will always be classified as 'hate speech'

What I will say about the issue is, the Jewish people's ascendancy over say the last 60 years is certainly not disconnected to the presence of another 'other', and access to white privilege, an access that was sealed off to them while in Europe. Any real criticism of Jewish behavior in any circle (for ex: Israel) in the US, IMO is very easily stifled by the label 'anti-semitism'

It is a fact that many early Jewish businesses were in black neighborhoods, translating that to 'exploitation' is a bit of a stretch I agree.

Thats all Im really saying about this.

I don't agree with you, and therefore I am not thinking. Nice.

Uhh No. your responses show that you refuse to read and understand (or are simply unable, which if thats the case, I suggest some reading courses) what the other person is saying, Camille has been much more polite than you deserve reg'ding this point, like here's a prime example:

My hesitation would come only to accept a lemonade from a lunatic who makes it from a toilet.

I said the lemonade is made from the finest lemons on earth, and poured into the toilet. But in your idiotic response, you do prove my point, I said the toilet is completely cleaned, never used, so hygenically speaking, there's more lunacy in drinking it out of a cup that's been used 100x, rather than the nice, sanitized, never used porcelain toilet I've suggested...

but that image correlates to another activity so strongly, that if asked to drink from it, you have a hard time separating these two facts. that is: 1. the toilet is used for another activity 2. The toilet is clean, never used, and the lemonade is fresh.

I find it ludicrous to say that blacks are considered animals to entertain us, considering that whites too dominate other sports and are glorified as well in this process.

Then read a history book. How else do you explain Ray Charles being able to sing to 10000+ people in Georgia in the 50s, but not being able to go get a sandwich after the show with one of his white fans, because the lunch counter is white only.

The only sports whites dominate in are those which have a high barrier to entry, in terms of equipment and training facilities, ie. Hockey. As Chris Rock said,

"as soon as you make a heated hockey rink, we're takin that shit over too"

"That ad [WaMu ad] really doesn't scream "domination."

If you actually are one of the "elite", you'd just snicker probably. Working stiffs of the paler variety see the bankers first as "white." Context creates the image as much as the parts that make the sum. People are seeing the sprinters first as "black", not as athletes ready to spring. Just reporting my impressions from candid conversation. The "stiffs" of my acquaintance just don't "get" their white privilege, at least for their generation. Need more education I guess.
Among desi, we see folks more as "brown" if they are being stereotyped, not as Sikh, Hindu, Pakistani, etc. Considering the limited range of most Americans awareness of cultures outside the U.S., and considering brown (Indian) minority status, we are right to be sensitive.
But you're absolutely correct. The people who authorized this ad (and maybe played the chastized bankers?) are in no danger of a coup--it's "power" slapping its own wrist. At least it packs more clout with the wagging finger attached to a traditionally low-on-the-totem-pole source. It is certainly less messy than the guillotine.
Still, I am leary of such tactics--they're very old. Pretend you're on the side of your "enemies" but really, you're initforyourself. Basic question: who benefits?

After looking at it, I can't say I completely disagree with you, although I will mention, it's very subjective what's considered 'hate speech' and what's not. Most of the 'Jewish exploitation of black' literature comes from the nation of islam

Hate speech is now highly subjective? Oh, the irony. The website you presented as a source to make your point is anti-semitic because it presents several articles depicting a jewish conspiracy to harm other ethnic groups. It's not even on the gray area.

Uhh No. your responses show that you refuse to read and understand (or are simply unable, which if thats the case, I suggest some reading courses)

Don't confuse "not understanding" with having to accept everything you write.

but that image correlates to another activity so strongly, that if asked to drink from it, you have a hard time separating these two facts. that is: 1. the toilet is used for another activity 2. The toilet is clean, never used, and the lemonade is fresh.

If everything you said was in my belief system, then I would have absolutely no problems in drinking the lemonade. In reality, piss (at least mine) and lemonade look very different. Furthermore, if the lemonade was delicious - which would be: best lemmons - then I would consider drinking lemonade from that toilet again and again. But you have to pour some ice, and a dash of sugar as well. The only reason why I would hesitate to drink it, is if I didn't believe it was clean... but you have cleared that one for me. And while it would be weird in the first instance, I wouldn't think about it afterwards. Similarly, if you hanged with people of different races daily, you would not feel threatened at night by black people as you've mentioned, and you would look for other cues, such as the way they dress, if they look suspiciously at you, etc.
Also, don't assume you know about what I would do in one situation or the other, and accuse me of being inhuman or dishonest if it fails to meet your myopic view - people have different experiences and thus react differently.

How else do you explain Ray Charles being able to sing to 10000+ people in Georgia in the 50s, but not being able to go get a sandwich after the show with one of his white fans, because the lunch counter is white only.

So, the only way for you to make the point is to bring a case 60 years ago in a time where apartheid laws existed. Are you telling me people have not past this point, or don't feel disgusted when they hear such injustices? (In the end, it all boils down to the perception we have of people around us).

The only sports whites dominate in are those which have a high barrier to entry, in terms of equipment and training facilities, ie. Hockey.

Still, the point stands that a great number of white people do entertain us in movies, sports and music, and are not considered animals. Why would blacks be perceived any different, is something I am not prepared to accept, even if you bring up cases from the deep south back in the 50s.

Hate speech is now highly subjective?

Yes, as are most social based judgements. For example, I think you're an idiot. You don't (at least I think you don't, but I'm not making any assumptions). See how determinations of idiocy are subjective as well.

Don't confuse "not understanding" with having to accept everything you write.

Im not. your response showed a lack of understanding, not acceptance. Because what you do, and still continue to do is make assumptions and exaggerations about what the other party is saying, then knock those down. Check sarah's link, although you're already following it to a T.

And while it would be weird in the first instance,

This is the most I'll get out of you Im convinced, your ego blocks you from full concession of my point. but that 'weirdness' is attributed to the mental connection that's been reinforced over and over again. You seem like you sort of understand.

So, the only way for you to make the point is to bring a case 60 years ago in a time where apartheid laws existed.

Well, when you're making a point about the historical significance you generally have to use examples from history. Stop strawmanning, no one here contends that intel plans to go to africa and bring over workers against their will, then not pay. But try to understand the subtextually tranmitted message in the advert, given the historical context.

Why would blacks be perceived any different, is something I am not prepared to accept, even if you bring up cases from the deep south back in the 50s.

If you think the human mind works without a social memory, then you're plainly mistaken.

We've had this discussion over at the blog, The Field Negro, about a week ago about those Intel ads.

The content was exactly what the marketing directors intended. They only back tracked because of the uproar, and the fear that African-Americans would toss their Intel computers out the window and convert to Macs.

So, I'm not fooled by their "mea culpa". It never would have happened if someone hadn't raised hell about those ads reeking of racist images.

I blame our government - Intel would never thought they could get away with this if the President of the United States, along with several African-American self-haters enabling him, to make racism fashionable again.

They only back tracked because of the uproar, and the fear that African-Americans would toss their Intel computers out the window and convert to Macs.

But dont iMacs use the intel core 2 duo, and MacPros use the intel xeon?

I blame our government - Intel would never thought they could get away with this if the President of the United States, along with several African-American self-haters enabling him, to make racism fashionable again.

initforthemoney, great point on "power" slapping its own wrist.

with the aggressive litigation and actions of conservative organizations like the American Civil Rights Institute (what a misnomer!)

That's for people who go by face value (in this case, the name) - just like the Discovery Institute or Commission for Presidential Debates. Plenty of such examples.

I'm somewhere near Leutisha's postion. Did they intend for the ad to be read in this way? I'm not sure, but ad people are well-aware of how image is used to manipulate, convey, teach and guide- so how can they not have been aware of some of its implications? I teach on race, imagery and media and to me, this is a blatant use of several racist positions. But as for whether or not the average "white" American would get it- no. they wouldn't because some levels of racist portrayal are a) subtle, b)have seeped into white subconscience and are therefore below the surface and c)don't affect how they see themselves. On the other hand, how many average readers will get the point about identical processors, etc.?
Race and perception take some very strange forms in the US. Seven years ago I worked for a PBS station that shall remain unnamed and in a meeting about possible directors for a project, the producers were quite upset at the Sacramento client who complained that they weren't using Latino directors on projects dealing with Latino subjects (this was for a peace officer training series) and they were shocked, shocked, I tell you, that Sac would chastise them so. And then they, 2 very white guys, openly stated that they could think of no Latino producer/directors between here and the border. And the Latina coordinator and I looked at each other in astonishment. This in a region that a)produces the largest Latino film festival in the US, has a number of award-winning Latino producer directors, has graduated a number of successful younger Latino/Mexican documentary producers, etc. Later, I was helping them cast a piece that needed Arab characters, of which I supplied several real Arabs of various origins and they went with the Mexican, the Iranian and the Armenian- giving them Hollywood accents because my guys didn't look Arab enough. When it was pointed out to them, that Arab has a wide range, they said really, and but they aren't big scary looking dudes with mustaches and a fanatic look about them. At which point I started looking for other work and when I found out later my supervisor ws running a call girl ring out of mu office while I was at lunch- I thought, well, explains a lot- but I digress.

Hate speech is now highly subjective? Yes, as are most social based judgements. For example, I think you're an idiot. You don't

What does hate speech have to do with perception, or you thinking that I am an idiot? You should read this. Given the definition, you can agree that hate speech is rarely subtle, and
the intent is almost always clear. Hence, it is not highly subjective. But I grant you that I am an idiot. :)

This is the most I'll get out of you Im convinced, your ego blocks you from full concession of my point. but that 'weirdness' is attributed to the mental connection

I already explained to you (who is not listening?) - as honestly as I can - that the weirdness comes from not be being used to drink something from a toilet. If you are used to, then there is no weiredness at all. If you are totally convinced (as you mention) that lemons are used (with a dash of sugar, and ice please), then I would not associate it with body fluids. It is very arrogant of you to say what I would think. I am not sure why you keep insisting on this silly example.

"If you think the human mind works without a social memory, then you're plainly mistaken."

The link that exists does not mean it affect us in a negative way. Sometimes it help us understand lessons of history, and make us better people. You are wrong, in my view, to interpret the historic context as a burden. My father had some politically incorrect ideas about gays and blacks, but it doesn't mean I have to interpret as he has, since he was born in a different environment than I have. So, there is a definite link, it does not mean we need necessary to follow. And certainly, attitudes have changed dramatically from the 50's in the deep south (from your example) and now.

So, I'm not fooled by their "mea culpa". It never would have happened if someone hadn't raised hell about those ads reeking of racist images.

I blame our government - Intel would never thought they could get away with this if the President of the United States, along with several African-American self-haters enabling him, to make racism fashionable again.

Leutisha, this is a great point. I agree that this is part of a larger pattern-- not only the government, though you're certainly right about that, but also the mainstream media. As long as they're willing to keep airing people like Imus and Limbaugh, they're contributing to that dynamic as well.

I have to say, though, it's been heartening to see that people are less willing to put up with it-- the outcry over the Imus/Rutgers women's basketball team flap kind of showed that people are being pushed to their limits when it comes to putting up with racism on the air, and now it seems more common for people to protest ads like this one. I hope it keeps growing. It seems like maybe Bush et al. have finally pushed so hard that people aren't willing to take it anymore... as the Onion put it this week, "Boy, this administration is really testing my apathy!"

you can agree that hate speech is rarely subtle

I can agree that people's opinion will differ on what constitutes 'degrading or intimidation'

And certainly, attitudes have changed dramatically from the 50's in the deep south (from your example) and now.

Ah yes, the "everything was f*cked up then, but it's all sorted out now" argument. Did you know that during the 50s in the deep south, they felt things were just honky dory then. From the southern manifesto:

This unwarranted exercise of power by the Court, contrary to the Constitution, is creating chaos and confusion in the States principally affected. It is destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding

This was written in 1956, where they claimed "friendship and understanding" between the races. But even you'd agree things were not equal then, right? Gallup polls in 1960s (predating the civil rights act and voting rights act) show majority of whites thinking blacks and whites had an equal opportunity.

So most whites were out to lunch then, unable intuit racial realities (even youd agree, things were unequal back then, right?), but all of a sudden they have the grip on reality now?

The content was exactly what the marketing directors intended. They only back tracked because of the uproar, and the fear that African-Americans would toss their Intel computers out the window and convert to Macs.

So, they created this racist ad against African-Americans, even though they fear that they would toss their Intel computers? You would think that if they had this fear, they would not do racist ads with intent in the first place, right?

I can agree that people's opinion will differ on what constitutes 'degrading or intimidation'

Yes, I am sure neo-nazis and every bigot out there would agree with your statement.

So most whites were out to lunch then, unable intuit racial realities (even youd agree, things were unequal back then, right?), but all of a sudden they have the grip on reality now?

It is not all of the sudden. A lot of things happened between the 60's and 50 years later. That's two generations. A lot more integration, education, civil right's movement, globalization. Would you say that germans are supremacist racist nazis? There was certainly a disconnection between the war generation, and the generations right after.

But you made my point. You mentioned the blantant racism that existed in Ray Charles years. And today we are discussing about an ad and a possible racist interpretation by some. This is, my friend, how far we have come.

The ad should of course have a woman in the center, but judging from all the comments that would be sensory overload.

Agree. And it is a sexy ad.

I have to say, though, it's been heartening to see that people are less willing to put up with it-- the outcry over the Imus/Rutgers women's basketball team flap kind of showed that people are being pushed to their limits when it comes to putting up with racism on the air, and now it seems more common for people to protest ads like this one.

One of the basketball team members is suing Imus and although her case seems trivial to some, claiming that she suffered humiliation at college, etc, I think it's about time that the people whom these shock jocks make fun of start getting a piece of the $$$ pie that they earn at their expense.

I blame our government - Intel would never thought they could get away with this if the President of the United States, along with several African-American self-haters enabling him, to make racism fashionable again.

Leutisha:

who are these self-haters. name names.

Oh, also, could you provide a link to Field Negro? I'd love to read the dialogue :)

I think this it, camille. For my money, it's pretty disgusting, though i'm not surprised given Leutisha's unsubstantiated and borderline racist rant. But judge for yourself. I report, you decide.

It because of stufff like this that people don't take racism seriously anymore.

"It seems like maybe Bush et al. have finally pushed so hard that people aren't willing to take it anymore... as the Onion put it this week, "Boy, this administration is really testing my apathy!"

To judge from my above mentioned sources, everybody's feeling that way for different reasons. But in a way, this is pretty ridiculous. The ad's quirky imagery--and a female of any race wearing black stockings, bustier, garter belt and chains would have created even more interesting controversy-- has been duly noted and protested. As it should. I expect an ad featuring a black computer nerd who is also a muscular sprinter, lecturing to out of shape white cavemen, to be drawn up very shortly--it is probably on the board right now. The cavemen have been recruited already from the Geico commercials, with the black guy from the WaMu ad. Blacks will then be assured that whites find them intelligent, regal and indispensible to the industry. Whites will be informed that they are backward and need technical instruction from black sprinter nerds. Whites can bitch about the ad as reverse racism, and people will stop telling them they are racist. Blacks will feel empowered. Desis can cheer on the sidelines. Everybody happy. Including the duffuses who caused this uproar in the first place.
Everyone seems to be missing the most important point. Why are people worrying about their image being created and manipulated by powers whom they think are out to get them? Why are they not firing up their own agencies and companies, creating their own imagery and characters? Ads don't make us--we make the ads.
Sometime ago, there was a protest of no black action characters in the comic books, so a black character was created and his type was condemned by black readers as too pimpy and stereotypical. Back to the drawing boards. The next black character (I won't say African American -- not sure if the comic was American) was too "white" and inauthentic. bzzzz. Wrong again. The comic book writers created the characters in their own image, using types they were familiar with. They had no idea how to write a black action hero. A black person must do that. Apparently they just sort of gave up. Even Superman couldn't go there.
Get out there with the goods, create your own imagery. That's what I say.

"...along with several African-American self-haters enabling him, to make racism fashionable again."

and btw, I am no fan of the current admin; however, the blacks, like the whites, are initforthemselves. They certainly do not hate themselves--they love themselves. They are doing what politicians and corporate hacks do to get more money and power for themselves. Rice has a ship--oil tanker I think--christened after her. She probably feels pretty good about herself. Colin Powell was one of the better ones of this sorry lot (I am including the whites), and he disappointed. But self-loathing did not enter into it. Fear more likely, in his case. Face it--few of the world's leaders could ever sleep at night if they were prone to any sort of self-examination.

But you made my point. You mentioned the blantant racism that existed in Ray Charles years. And today we are discussing about an ad and a possible racist interpretation by some. This is, my friend, how far we have come.

That's exactly what the whites of the 50s said. Look how far we have come.

That's exactly what the whites of the 50s said. Look how far we have come.

And compared to the 1850's, they had indeed come far. Progress is incremental. Change does not happen over night.

And compared to the 1850's, they had indeed come far. Progress is incremental. Change does not happen over night.

thats fine, but the only problem with "look how far weve come" is that in this context its followed by "be greatful for what youve got. shut up and deal with it"

P.-

Exactly. And while we have made great strides since the '50's- we're not done, it's not over and the way the "War" in Iraq and the war crimes trials in Camp Pendleton, for example, are being handled, show that we have a ways to go. And this "ad" does not suggest that the image producers get that.

Oh, and Sarah- glad you liked the lady liberty comment, Wait til you see the pict I'm going to do a Libery at the border fence being asked for her papers, caption: Ahora que tu es una refugiada, no te quiero yo...

Oh, and Sarah- glad you liked the lady liberty comment, Wait til you see the pict I'm going to do a Libery at the border fence being asked for her papers, caption: Ahora que tu es una refugiada, no te quiero yo...

I love it!!

And compared to the 1850's, they had indeed come far. Progress is incremental. Change does not happen over night.

Yes they had, but in the 50s they were saying it with the clear implication that they could go no further (when now, we know they could), look at the southern manifesto link, the entire document is against the passage of brown v board of education, resisting change. the same way the people who are saying right now "look how far we've come" are saying it with the same subtextual meaning: there's no further to go.

Any real criticism of Jewish behavior in any circle (for ex: Israel) in the US, IMO is very easily stifled by the label 'anti-semitism'

HMF, do you not see the irony here?

the same way the people who are saying right now "look how far we've come" are saying it with the same subtextual meaning: there's no further to go.

There you go again with the sub-concious-textual interpretation. And again totally wrong. My point on how far we have come is to show that the attitudes of people TODAY are not the same as 50 years ago, specially in matters of race. No one is naive to suggest that we don't have a long way to go - not only for whites, but desis and other ethnic groups - in accepting each other.

In reality, the irony of it, is that you yourself are an example of why we have a long way to go. In these past two days, you have stated that you feel threatened by blacks at night which in your mind is 'natural', you have cited an anti-semitic site to prove your point, and have made the outregeous comment that what constitutes hate speech is highly subjective. I guess you have the higher ground to accuse Intel of producing racist material, uh?

the same way the people who are saying right now "look how far we've come" are saying it with the same subtextual meaning: there's no further to go.

HMF, I don't know about that. The first part of your sentence ("how far we've come" - which I agree with) does not lead me to the second part ("no further to go" - which I disagree).

Amit, I think in the context of discussions on race when someone says "but look how far we've come far" it is used as a rhetorical device to undermine any sense of urgency around issues of inequality or racism. It's a way of dismissing the conversation or topic. I think PindaUSA actually summed it up fairly well. I'm also relatively disgusted that someone would say "look how far we've come from 1850" -- I mean, really? I'm sure it wasn't meant this way, but that is the same rhetoric that was used extensively to justify the separate but equal clause as well as the delay of integration, and it's the same phrase used to dismiss contemporary concerns regarding racial inequality (e.g. in the prison system or in public schooling).

Amit, I think in the context of discussions on race when someone says "but look how far we've come far" it is used as a rhetorical device to undermine any sense of urgency around issues of inequality or racism.

Are you saying that since there has been a proven pattern in the past of using those words to stifle debate, so anyone who now uses those words is automatically suspect, even if they don't mean it that way? If so, it seems a very odd way of having a debate if people have already been slotted into places. Maybe it's my inexperience talking here...

I think visualizing the problem of racism as 'something that will go away eventually' is itself the problem. Yes, one hopes it will, but one also knows that human nature is not going to transform dramatically in a few generations. Trying to figure out how much progress there may have been in the last 50 or 100 or 150 years is not totally useless, but since social conditions change, and the economic system (mercantile capitalism, semi-feudal agriculture, or internet-mediated globalization) changes, the form in which racism makes its presence felt also changes, and sometimes this gives the illusion of temporal progress. This might even be true, occassionally, for a small group, within a particular community, or professonal situation (e.g., Jews on Wall Street, going by Manju upthread), etc. But that doesn't mean the thing itself has gone away.

Cisco, you said:

With so much explicit racism going on, it is a pity that people get upset by racism stemmed from subjective interpretation. There is absolutely no motivation for a company like Intel to engage in racist ads, imaginary or otherwise.

I believe this suggests the minimizing of subtextual racism, insofar as it connects to history.

My point on how far we have come is to show that the attitudes of people TODAY are not the same as 50 years ago, specially in matters of race. No one is naive to suggest that we don't have a long way to go

Look, you can say your motivation for saying whatever you say is a big pink elephant that dances to the song "chocolate rain", and there's no way I could challenge it. However, at every juncture in history, the white majority has always said the attitude of people TODAY (relative to that pt in time) was not the same as 50 years ago, so in 1960 they were better than 1910, in 1910 they were better than 1860, etc.. in the context of "it's not so bad for the blacks, why are you complaining?" as puli said.

I guess you have the higher ground to accuse Intel of producing racist material, uh?

Look pal, if anyone here is claiming higher ground it's you. I'm being completey honest with myself, notice the point I said about crossing the street hasn't really been contested or even harped on by anyone else, because it rings true. According to this book, black crime is overrepresented in the media say like 300-400%, or something crazy like that. If you don't think that the US has a national consciousness that positions us to fear black men disproportionately, with how they're portrayed in tv, music, etc.. and that you are completely divorced from it "because you have a few black friends" then you're just being unrealistic or you haven't spent that much time in the US.

HMF, do you not see the irony here?

POC need to step up and grow some balls.

No I don't, because I think your attitude is tantamount to 'blaming the victim.' and it much more represents "the further to go" In every case it was the white majority who made changes to their lawbooks (and collective changes to their psychology slowly followed - ie. it was ok to own black people in the 1800s, now its just ok blame them for their problems) Just because there are fewer laws to change, this doesn't absolve them of responsibility as you presume here.

But since you keep trying to steer the conversation back into the Jewish situation, I'll say this again, I definitely thing there is a double standard in the way oppression & discrimination is discussed in this country. When black people complain about racism that lingers from the 50s arena, they are told to 'shutup because look how far we've come' when Jews mention the holocaust they get no such response, in fact all of us are expected to reflect on how inhumane it was and reaffirm that we should never let something like that happen again.

Which is completely fine, but let's equalize this response. Oppression is oppression. But like I said, I learned who Hitler was when I was ten years old. TEN. I'm still learning to this day about systematic barriers against nonwhites that have existed in this country.

Are you saying that since there has been a proven pattern in the past of using those words to stifle debate, so anyone who now uses those words is automatically suspect, even if they don't mean it that way?

No I don't, because I think your attitude is tantamount to 'blaming the victim.' and it much more represents "the further to go" In every case it was the white majority who made changes to their lawbooks (and collective changes to their psychology slowly followed - ie. it was ok to own black people in the 1800s, now its just ok blame them for their problems) Just because there are fewer laws to change, this doesn't absolve them of responsibility as you presume here

How does demanding POC get brave and call out racism constitute "blaming the victim" for racism? strawman argument?

I'll say this again, I definitely thing there is a double standard in the way oppression & discrimination is discussed in this country. When black people complain about racism that lingers from the 50s arena, they are told to 'shutup because look how far we've come' when Jews mention the holocaust they get no such response, in fact all of us are expected to reflect on how inhumane it was and reaffirm that we should never let something like that happen again

I have no idea what you're talking about and you offer no proof. to be fair, i've seen this form of McCarthyism practiced by both sides. in fact, on this thread alone you have one individual use the "self hating" argument to describe blacks who don't toe the party line, not unlike the self-hating jew argument for those who oppose israel.

This is a follow-up to chachaji's question re: the California initiative process/Intel

I wasn't going to post this originally because I wasn't sure how on topic it is, but given ak and chachaji's interest in the issue, I hope folks will indulge me as I answer their questions re: Intel's interest in an anti-(civil rights class action) amendment to the California Constitution.

1. How the CA Initiative Process has become a corporate playground
chachaji writes:

One of the reasons ballot initiatives came along was that the traditional legislative process was thoroughly dominated by lobbyists - mostly for corporations. So I was looking for some enlightenment on how Intel, of all companies would get in on this one, and what the background to the initiative was, and how they got involved.

A little background on process/logistics for initiatives:

The initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them.[ Article 2, California Constitution]

In order to qualify for the ballot, an initiative petition must meet the following:

An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election. [ Article 2, Sec. 8(b)]

To get 8% of the electorate to sign, you'll need 82,786.375 man-hours. Each working 8 hours/day, you would need 227 workers (in reality you would probably need between 500-1000). At $7.50/hour (California minimum wage), just to pay these people to help get signatures to get your initiative on the ballot would cost about $620,988. The actual cost, given voter turnout, is actually probably higher. Once you factor in ad campaign spending, etc., the cost of putting forth an initiative is a minimum of $1 million.

So, what we've seen is a growing number of pro-business constitutional amendments that are promoted through business lobbies and PACs and that are financially backed by business leaders. It's difficult to fundraise money for an initiative, unless it is being strategically played (which the business and conservative lobbies are historically better at, in California).

2. Why Intel may be interested in pushing an initiative
I don't know if Intel is at risk of litigation -- I tried to look up their case history, and the only information that came up was re: 14th amendment/civil rights as they apply to the internet (i.e. not in the context of race, etc.), and anti-trust and copyright litigation. My hunch is that Intel, along with other big California employers/businesses, are simply riding the success of their previous initiative win in 2005 and are trying to limit their exposure to lawsuits even further. It'll be interesting to see if more "watchdog" information comes out as this initiative proposal advances. The thing that makes this attempt unique is that it completely overturns decades of precedential case law. It'll be interesting to see if the Secretary of State rules it germane or out of order (I would hope the latter, but who knows?).

How does demanding POC get brave and call out racism constitute "blaming the victim" for racism? strawman argument?

Well,not really, it depends, do you say it with the implied belief that the majority if not exclusive responsibility lies on POC? In terms of POC's "getting" brave, I think it's highly repugnant to suggest it, as millions of POC's have suffered tremendously to achieve the gains gotten so far. POC have always been brave, and always will be, as it's a matter of survival. However, it's whites who can so easily dodge responsibility by saying exactly what you said, or using statements like yours and the Cos's. (I think they can use the Cos's statement more effectively than yours)

I have no idea what you're talking about and you offer no proof.

Are you really contesting that Jewish oppression and say, black oppression are treated differently in this country and quite possibly most of the western world? Please explain why one genocide has capitilized on the term 'holocaust', technically the first holocaust on US soil was the genocide of the native american, I remember when I was 10, a teacher was explaining this, and saying, "Yes, Holocaust with a capital H means what the Nazi's did in Germany" and I thought to myself, "why is that? why is one suffering given more attention than another?"

Are you really contesting that Jewish oppression and say, black oppression are treated differently in this country and quite possibly most of the western world?

Yes. That's what I'm saying. As to why the Jewish genocide is a capital "H" there are all kinds of discrepancies. I mean there is no real slavery denial movement. Other genocides, especially stalin's and mao's, don't get the same attention. certainly in the academy, attacks on israel and jews are not policed like those against affirmative action (like the university that tried to ban the affirmative action bake sale). I've seen bullying both ways, probably more on the leftist side as america is for good reason more sensitive to racism against blacks, thus the emergence of a tawana brawley culture, but maybe that's just me.

As to why the Jewish genocide is a capital "H" there are all kinds of discrepancies. I mean there is no real slavery denial movement.

Are you saying the Jewish holocaust got heightened exposure in the United States as a result of the denial movement? There's no "official" slavery denial movement, but there is loads of subtextual minimization of it, James Loewen did an amazing treatment in his book, "Lies my teacher told me" where he exposed how elementary & junior high school history books deal with the issue as something that 'just happened' rather than something that had an active agent behind it.

Secondly, any bringing up of slavery results in nothing but moans and groans by nearly every white person around, "why don't you just move on?" is the repeated message. I've seriously never heard this said against any Jew who brings up the Jewish holocaust (not that I want to, but I'm just noting the difference)

thus the emergence of a tawana brawley culture, but maybe that's just me.

please, don't conflate these types of incidents with some kind of hypersensitivity on the part of black america, Im surprised you didnt cop out and bring up the duke rape case.

Secondly, any bringing up of slavery results in nothing but moans and groans by nearly every white person around, "why don't you just move on?" is the repeated message.

Just because I know some folks are really into data, here's a poll asking both blacks and whites about corporations that have may benefited from slavery:

in particular:
"Do you think corporations who made profits from slavery in the United States should or should not set up scholarship funds for black Americans who are descendants of slaves?"

should should not
Whites 35 61
Blacks 75 20
.

"Do you think the government should or should not make cash payments to black Americans who are descendants of slaves?"

should should not
Whites 6 90
Blacks 55 37

while the "not supporting any kind of reparation" doesn't equate to denial, I'd say these numbers at the very least indicate strong differences of perception on the effect slavery has on opportunity available today.

Secondly, any bringing up of slavery results in nothing but moans and groans by nearly every white person around, "why don't you just move on?"

You seem to be spending way too much time on Nation of Islam sites. History needs to be taught so that we understand the lessons of the past, but we do need to move on... isn't this what you have been moaning about? That we have a historic racist link that still prevails sub-text-consciously? Shouldn't we move on from that?

We HAVE indeed come along way since 1850 and 1950's. And guess what? This give us hope that the next 50 years we will keep MOVING on. That is the message of an optimist... not a moaner like yourself, who still wants to perpetuate the "minority as a victim" mantra.

No, I'm just saying that this is OFTEN the case. ... ...

Secondly, any bringing up of slavery results in nothing but moans and groans by nearly every white person around, "why don't you just move on?" is the repeated message. I've seriously never heard this said against any Jew who brings up the Jewish holocaust (not that I want to, but I'm just noting the difference)

at this point, HMF, I seriously don't know what world you're living in. This nation has gone thru and continues to go thru a massive conversation about race. I learnt abaout slavery and jim crow starting in elementary school.

please, don't conflate these types of incidents with some kind of hypersensitivity on the part of black america

it's not hyper sensitivity...it's the use of racism the way joe mccarthy used communism, as a way of demonizing opponents for ones own personal and political gain. you see it in this thread, certainly in the vile "the field negro" blog. McCarthyism set back the great cause of anti-communism and I think this racial McCarthyism is doing the same for the cause of anti-racism. You made the point yourself:

Any real criticism of Jewish behavior in any circle (for ex: Israel) in the US, IMO is very easily stifled by the label 'anti-semitism'

Why the double standard?

It interesting the most bigotry on this thread was displayed by you and Leutisha ("african american self haters", "it's very subjective what's considered 'hate speech' and what's not"--which is true, but you said it in the context of discussing a virulently anti-semetic hate site!

"This nation has gone thru and continues to go thru a massive conversation about race. I learnt abaout slavery and jim crow starting in elementary school."

Read James Loewens book, its not about what is taught, but the way, Slavery and Jim Crow are taught as not having an active agent behind it. He's done a thorough study of 16 or so textbooks. The real comparison I would guess, is to compare how the Jewish holocaust is taught in the states vs. how it's taught in Germany.

"Why the double standard?"

I don't get it, are you saying because people bring up racism so much, it's hard to fight racism? Give me a break, I hate to sound like a 'conspiracy theorist' but there are clear indications that the Jewish community has far more infrastructural capability, and while yes, they have faced barriers, cannot be equated to the barriers blacks and nonwhites have faced (particulaly in big cities like NY, LA) You honestly sound like Rush Limbaugh here saying, "well [insert group here] can do it, why can't the blacks?" When you have two different groups with two different histories, you need two standards.

"it's very subjective what's considered 'hate speech' and what's not"--which is true, but you said it in the context of discussing a virulently anti-semetic hate site! "

No, actually if you re-read my response, I say I don't disagree with your assessment of the site, but rather stated that hate-speech classification is subjective. I wasn't trying to defend the site, however I do believe that no true assessment can be made of Jewish behavior as a result of our national culture.

I don't get it, are you saying because people bring up racism so much, it's hard to fight racism?

No. Because people bring up false charges of racism, or in other contexts, false charges of being a communist or anti-semite.

I do believe that no true assessment can be made of Jewish behavior as a result of our national culture.

it's a free country. you have to be brave, like dinesh d'souza or bill cosby. israel gets criticized all the time, there's even a big divestment movement and a movement to boycott israeli universities and professors. so i don't know what you're afraid off. sure, some will think you're an anti-semite (just as some think d'souza, charles murray, cos or clarance thomas are racists) and your views will intersect with anti-semitism so it's understandable, but stand your ground. just don't link to anti-semitic websites, play down the bigotry of hate groups like NOI, and try to condemn obvious anti-semitism with more than a a lame "After looking at it, I can't say I completely disagree with you"

"I tried to look up their case history, and the only information that came up was re: 14th amendment/civil rights as they apply to the internet (i.e. not in the context of race, etc.), and anti-trust and copyright litigation."

Just out of curiosity, what do you use to look up case histories in general?

"That is the message of an optimist... not a moaner like yourself"

by that def'n MLK was the biggest moaner of all time.

"you have to be brave, like dinesh d'souza or bill cosby"

how convenient, when people take a stand that happens to coincide with the white world view (ie. people of color need to wake up and bla bla), it's being brave. when people do the opposite, it's "making false claims of racism"

"and try to condemn obvious anti-semitism with more than a a lame "After looking at it, I can't say I completely disagree with you"

It's obvious to you, and I don't consider the NOI a hate group, no more than I do the JDL.

how convenient, when people take a stand that happens to coincide with the white world view (ie. people of color need to wake up and bla bla), it's being brave. when people do the opposite, it's "making false claims of racism"

it's not convenient at all. i inconveniently attacked those who label israel's critics anti-semetic. you convienently want to retain the very McCarthyism you condemn. pot meet kettle.

It's obvious to you, and I don't consider the NOI a hate group, no more than I do the JDL.

so it's not obvious to you that this is a hate site. interesting. i'll let other's decide. i see now why you are always being charged with anti-semitism when you put forth arguments you think are legit.

Farrakhan: "Is the Federal Reserve owned by the government?"
Audience: "No."
Farrakhan: "Who owns the federal reserve?"
Audience: "Jews."
Farrakhan: "The same year they set up the IRS, they set up the FBI. And the same year they set up the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith...It could be a coincidence...[I want] to see Black intellectuals free...I want to see them not controlled by members of the Jewish community." (Source: Dallas Observer on-line, August 10, 2000)

by that def'n MLK was the biggest moaner of all time.

Don't confuse Nation of Islam with MLK. And I guess you and people like you are not very keen with Mandela's "moving on" attitude, for the sake of the new South African generations.

It's obvious to you, and I don't consider the NOI a hate group, no more than I do the JDL.

The FBI and the anti-defamation league have referred JDL as a violent extremist Jewish organization, and is listed as terrorist organization. But you would not need to know about JDL's credential's if you actually read its virulent anti-arab and anti-muslim articles. This leads me to believe that you are either clueless, or worse, have fallen into a radical line of thought, which explains your constant bitching about jews and whites. The article you cited about how jews exploit blacks is really despicable.

"so it's not obvious to you that this is a hate site. interesting. i'll let other's decide. i see now why you are always being charged with anti-semitism when you put forth arguments you think are legit."

I didn't see the site directly, I saw the article, and admittedly didn't read it carefully. And how many times do I have to disprove your equating of the Jewish situation with anti black racism in the US? Because the jewish people have an entire infrastructure available to them (which was acheived by their efforts, I agree) that simply doesn't exist for anyone else, despite how powerful you think Sharpton and Jesse are. You're saying the same shit over again. But anti-semitism is having some hatred towards the Jewish religion (a la Hitler, the Pope's father, and Mel Gibson) which I do not have or never claimed any legacy with.

Furthermore, whats the point of posting Farakhan's statement? I never said I 100% agree with the man, I do agree with him on some points, probably not the one which you posted.

And how many times do I have to disprove your equating of the Jewish situation with anti black racism in the US?

i didn't equate the two situations, just the" McCaryism." I agree, they are different and even acknowledged that America's heightened sensitivity to racism is justified. I do see jews as a model minority, though, who we all can learn from, especilly browns whose experience with racism may paralell jews. I think the next step in the civil right struggle is economic empowerment, which means an embrace of the free markets, but that's another arguemnt.

Furthermore, whats the point of posting Farakhan's statement?

this:

I don't consider the NOI a hate group

Unfortunately, the NOI and Farrakhan are not synonymous, I guess when I look at the NOI, I look at it from it's inception, from the time of W.D. Fard, who prediates Elijah Poole, later on to become Elijah Mohammed, and their early messages of black unity, supporting their own, etc.. (actions which the Jews have themselves done) I've read a bit more about the NOI and the FOI, than just wiki summaries. Secondly, I'd like to know what you think about this, as it, to some degree represents my position. I don't agree with Farrakhan's talk of general 'misbehavior'

I do see jews as a model minority, though, who we all can learn from, especilly browns whose experience with racism may paralell jews

It's an ideal sure, but I think you too easily wash away the barriers of 'whiteness' as it's a social condition that is indeed connected to skin reflectance, It's just a little too Rush Limbaugh'ish to say, "look at them, if they can do it, we can do it" Vijay Prashad talks about this in the Karma of Brown folk.

oh god, i just find farrakhan so full of guile. I haven't studied him or the NOI in depth, but just see him in speeches that reach the news and he seems so full of prejudice.

oh god, i just find farrakhan so full of guile. I haven't studied him or the NOI in depth, but just see him in speeches that reach the news and he seems so full of prejudice.

Then you need to check out Dr. Malachi York. He takes it even to the next level.

Just because I know some folks are really into data, here's a poll asking both blacks and whites about corporations that have may benefited from slavery:

in particular:
"Do you think corporations who made profits from slavery in the United States should or should not set up scholarship funds for black Americans who are descendants of slaves?"

should should not
Whites 35 61
Blacks 75 20
.

"Do you think the government should or should not make cash payments to black Americans who are descendants of slaves?"

should should not
Whites 6 90
Blacks 55 37

while the "not supporting any kind of reparation" doesn't equate to denial, I'd say these numbers at the very least indicate strong differences of perception on the effect slavery has on opportunity available today.

If corporations who benefitted from slavery compensate the present descendents of slaves, then how much more so should the corporations who benefitted and still benefit from the exploitation of women compensate the girls and women of today!!!

That way today's black women would benefit two-fold, as we should, since we have been on the very bottom of the rung for centuries.

That way today's black women would benefit two-fold, as we should, since we have been on the very bottom of the rung for centuries.

I wish that this country didn't have this sordid history of exploitation and slavery...but it does and how to compensate money-wise for this - I think it's almost impossible. That's the only reason why I'm not for slavery reparations b/c it doesn't seem a doable public policy - how to set the criteria? what other groups do we include?

The intel ad to me is racist, pandering to the lowest common denominator. I understand a little of what CiscoKid is wary of ---seeing racism in everything to the point where (and I think this is what Manju meant) its Mccarthyite racism. But this ad, to me, isn't an example of that.

CiscoKid, if you are South Asian descent, let me ask you a question. What if the ad showed a picture of a white man standing in the middle, surrounded by Indians dressed as coolies carrying luggage. Would you find that racist?

I agree with HMF says until he started supporting his argument with anti-semitic websites, and Farrakhan...after that, I'm afraid, HMF's arguments lost credibility, even though I agreed with what he was intially saying about how this ad is so racist.

It's an ideal sure, but I think you too easily wash away the barriers of 'whiteness' as it's a social condition that is indeed connected to skin reflectance, It's just a little too Rush Limbaugh'ish to say, "look at them, if they can do it, we can do it

But the fact of the matter is that Indians have a skin colour similar to blacks and hispanics, and we are currently the most successful ethnic minority in the US (and indeed in the UK). Obviously, we have it much easier now than blacks and jews had it 50 years back, and such success would never happen in the 1950s where there were laws that would have prevented us from achieving what we have today. Obviously, I do believe that the legacy of repression certainly has its effects in the black community today, but I don't believe that skin colour is a handicap to success at this day and age.

But the fact of the matter is that Indians have a skin colour similar to blacks and hispanics, and we are currently the most successful ethnic minority in the US (and indeed in the UK). Obviously, we have it much easier now than blacks and jews had it 50 years back, and such success would never happen in the 1950s where there were laws that would have prevented us from achieving what we have today. Obviously, I do believe that the legacy of repression certainly has its effects in the black community today, but I don't believe that skin colour is a handicap to success at this day and age.

I agree, it's not skin colour that is a handicap neccessarily.

Asians in general have a much different family dynamic going on from black and hispanic Americans, communities that see alot of divorce and pregnancy out of wed-lock. A lack of a strong male role model and the over-compensation of the strong female role model is part of this. Most asian Americans kids grow up in two parent homes and those parents tend to be quite strict and their emphasis is on higher education.

If the family unit is the basis of any society, this is an indication of why things are they way they are in America.

If the family unit is the basis of any society, this is an indication of why things are they way they are in America.

I completely agree with your point.

CiscoKid, if you are South Asian descent, let me ask you a question. What if the ad showed a picture of a white man standing in the middle, surrounded by Indians dressed as coolies carrying luggage. Would you find that racist?

Yes, I would think it was racist. Blacks pictured as slaves or servants bowing to the white... racist. But I believe that you and others are handpicking what you want to see in this picture in order to see racism: that they are not dressed as sprinters, and that the "bowing" is not the starting position of a sprinter. Furthermore, besides blacks being depicted as athletes which in our popular culture are glorified regardless of race, they also represent an employee of the company, which is quite evident in the fact that each of them has a desk. So their position is not of a slave or a coolie, but of a high paying job in either form - as an athlete or as an employee.

Some people went even further saying that Intel's racism was with intent, but that is ridiculous because no company wants to be seen as racist. Intel is not an american company, it is a global company. And only a foolish company would want to alienate its client base. I would certainly not buy anything from a company that I perceived to be racist to my people, or to any other.

I can see how this ad can be seen as racist, and I think the marketing people are paid well to make sure that their ads are not interpreted the wrong way. But I feel that many of you are overreacting over this ad. I think when tackling racism and injustices that exist in the world, we must be fair and objective, or we will fail miserably. But that is just my opinion.

I haven't studied him or the NOI in depth, but just see him in speeches that reach the news and he seems so full of prejudice.

He was originally Louis X, and only given Arabic name Farrakhan in light of the division with Malcolm X. It had everything to do with the internal politics of the NOI in the few months predating Malcolm's assassination and the years that followed. The clip of him I put up was from Al Jazeera, a network that rarely overlaps the US main stream media in terms of programming content. Do I agree with everything Farrakhan says? No, but I also think its silly to outright label him a boogeyman as what mainstream white America usually does.

I agree with HMF says until he started supporting his argument with anti-semitic websites, and Farrakhan.

If you go back and read, you'll see the entire Jewish discussion was tangential to the discussion of the ad.

Furthermore, besides blacks being depicted as athletes which in our popular culture are glorified regardless of race

Exactly. Athletes are proud of their athletic careers and black people are proud that we represent well in sports. It is nothing at all to be ashamed of.

The real core of the lack of equal representation in other fields of expertise in this country has to do largely with social structure which is largely dependent on the family structure. Black fathers are absent in large numbers throughout the African American community. That is a huge issue for us.

1. It's a negative myth that desis are a recent part of the American social fabric, and it's a myth that desis haven't been an integral part of the battle for civil rights throughout american history (dating back to the 19th century). It wasn't just blacks and jews fighting for civil rights for non-whites/non-protestants. It was desis too throughout American history.
2. Farakhan and the Nation of Islam don't deserve praise, in my opinion. Among other socially regressive stances, they oppose interracial unions, and publicize this fact right on their website (and, blasphemously some would say, call this "The Muslim Program"):

http://noi.org/muslim_program.htm

"10. We believe that intermarriage or race mixing should be prohibited."

How about that? An organization that doesn't even hide that they're opposed to intermarriage or race mixing -in 2007. And calls it the muslim religion.

To the extent that Farakhan, the NOI, or any other organization can get black men to step up their program and become and stay committed husbands (legally married, not common-law) and fathers, to the same extent I will support them, not more, not less.

Farakhan and the Nation of Islam don't deserve praise, in my opinion. Among other socially regressive stances, they oppose interracial unions, and publicize this fact right on their website (and, blasphemously some would say, call this "The Muslim Program"):

No offense, but.. so the F what? opposing interracial unions is the least of their problems. But I suggest you to consider the climate in which the organization was formed, during that time a black man could get lynched for walking alongside the same side of the street as a white woman, let alone marry her. I agree that some of their tenets are outdated and no longer serve a real purpose, as the climate in which it was established has changed.

HMF, opposing interracial unions is being on the same side as the lynchers, not the lynchees. I think Harry Belafonte had the right stance on this. Louis Farakhan and the NOI, the wrong stance.

"HMF, opposing interracial unions is being on the same side as the lynchers, not the lynchees"

awesome dude, you just out-extremed me. nice.

As I noted earlier, I don't think its ever useful for a "black" POC to notice racism, on the job,unless you have a burning cross on your desk, with someone swinging a noose shaped lasso at you. Manju it does sound brave for you to write "POC need to step up and grow some balls. if you think something is racist, say it. " and then a few lines later characterize it as part of a "tawana brawley culture"... and no, it's NOT just you. I suppose you have to be the "right" type of victim.

I think this it, camille. For my money, it's pretty disgusting, though i'm not surprised given Leutisha's unsubstantiated and borderline racist rant. But judge for yourself. I report, you decide.

It because of stuff like this that people don't take racism seriously anymore

Why the double standard?

It interesting the most bigotry on this thread was displayed by you and Leutisha ("african american self haters", "it's very subjective what's considered 'hate speech' and what's not"--which is true, but you said it in the context of discussing a virulently anti-semetic hate site!

Leutisha and "the field negro" blog obvisoulsy rubbed you the wrong way. I'm quite conservative in my politics and "social mores". For the record I'm not for reparations, apology for slavery etc. As you seem interested in other blogs check out "Booker Rising" (right leaning), one of the most "prolific", rarely censored commenter's there, would definitely fit the bill of a "self hater". You'll have no trouble, if you check a couple of the threads, in finding someone who would have been banned ages ago, from commenting here. It's a psychosis with some "right leaning" AfAm that literally equates "black" with a mental/moral/aesthetic deficiency. An honest self hater. You might find it [the blog]useful time wasting, especially since you confused "the field negro" with the voice of black America.

In my limited sample,there IS a correlation between "conservative" politics and questionable self image (generally the 40+ crowd). Of course that is not always the case, but I've seen it too often to dismiss it.

Whats really interesting to me, is the discussions on racism you choose to engage in and the ones you don't. Then again, we all have our images of who we are, and are not, and what realities we choose to give attention to.

It's hard out here for an Af-Am. If we speak out about the very real problems in our community that hold us back, such as a lack of positive male role models for our fatherless children, we are seen as "self-haters". Yet if we ignore the problems, say and do nothing, and try to act all proud and cultural, nothing changes and we remain the same (down and out) year after year, decade after decade, left only to decry and bemoan our fate and of course play the blame game without any personal responsibility. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

"It's hard out here for an Af-Am."

*but look how far we've come*

It's hard out here for an Af-Am. If we speak out about the very real problems in our community that hold us back, such as a lack of positive male role models for our fatherless children, we are seen as "self-haters". Yet if we ignore the problems, say and do nothing, and try to act all proud and cultural, nothing changes and we remain the same

The reason for this is that it is much easier to blame others for our shortcomings than to admit our own responsability. The solution is to address these problems head-on for the sake of future generations, and ignore those who prefer the easy route which is to play the blame-game, and keep their heads in the past rather than looking in the future. History is very important, and injustices of the past should serve as a guide to the future, not an excuse for things to remain the same.

Time to boycott Intel!!!

"It's hard out here for an Af-Am."

*but look how far we've come*

We've come far in some arenas, but in the marriage and family arena we have fallen way behind.

We've come far in some arenas, but in the marriage and family arena we have fallen way behind.

And let me add that is nobody's fault but our own. There is no establishment or system out there preventing our men from marrying us and properly fathering our children.

"We've come far in some arenas, but in the marriage and family arena we have fallen way behind."

I was being sarcastic.

dilettante:

Manju it does sound brave for you to write "POC need to step up and grow some balls. if you think something is racist, say it. " and then a few lines later characterize it as part of a "tawana brawley culture"... and no, it's NOT just you. I suppose you have to be the "right" type of victim.

I think anti-Semitism is a rising problem. anti-war protesters dress up like suicide bombers and the arab press engages in blood libel of the most virulent sort. But I still take time out to condemn those who stifle debate by labeling Israel’s critics anti-Semites. get it?

Leutisha and "the field negro" blog obvisoulsy rubbed you the wrong way.

Yes. I don't like huge slabs of political though being relegated to whites only. As if browns and blacks don't have a diverse opinions. can't we be war-mongering, selfish capitalists w/o being accused of self-hatred? Why must whites only benefit from all these lovely things and we, the brown/black people, be relegated to being lame peace-loving socialists? Haven't Indians suffered long enough form this train of racist thought?

You might find it [the blog]useful time wasting, especially since you confused "the field negro" with the voice of black America.

No. she spoke for herself. that's my whole point. (in)authenticity doesn't exist. (except for California rolls, don't get me started on that)

For the record I'm not for reparations, apology for slavery etc.

I'm for them, actually.

Whats really interesting to me, is the discussions on racism you choose to engage in and the ones you don't.

what the hell you talking about, i'm all over those threads. Check me out.

And let me add that is nobody's fault but our own. There is no establishment or system out there preventing our men from marrying us and properly fathering our children.

Lea:

Why do you hate yourself?

As if browns and blacks don't have a diverse opinions. can't we be war-mongering, selfish capitalists w/o being accused of self-hatred?

It gets tricky while using the US as a context. selfish capitalism means you want the old white people rich people who control 95% of the capital to retain it, war mongering means you believe in the US military-corporate complex motivations, those that have historically marginalized non whites.

selfish capitalism means you want the old white people rich people who control 95% of the capital to retain it,

you're confusing capitalism with anti-globalization.

war mongering means you believe in the US military-corporate complex motivations, those that have historically marginalized non whites.

the bosnians and french were liberated, but the south koreans and afganis were marginalized?

what the hell you talking about, i'm all over those threads. Check me out.

You abandoned the debate, in both cases, when an "alternative view" (white male) began to pontificate in a negative way against browns. Your comments preceded the troll(?) both times,in contrast to this thread. My point was, as with most of us, behaviors from certain groups irriatate us more than the same thing from others.

Lea Jordan Meese I agree with your points at #239, and #241. I didnt comment becuase I think it's somewhat beyond the focus/scope/purpose of this particular blog. Meet me over at Booker Rising. #246 - If we speak out about the very real problems in our community that hold us back, such as a lack of positive male role models for our fatherless children, we are seen as "self-haters". That's hyperbole. As was Manju at #254. At least you've both gone beyond my comments on the subject.

"you're confusing capitalism with anti-globalization."

globalization's intent is not to empower traditionally 'held back' minorities in the US. I dont' care how many companies set up shop in Bangalore.

You abandoned the debate, in both cases, when an "alternative view" (white male) began to pontificate in a negative way against browns. Your comments preceded the troll(?) both times,in contrast to this thread. My point was, as with most of us, behaviors from certain groups irriatate us more than the same thing from others.

i was irritated, as i was with this ad, but my words weren't needed. other's stepped in quickly to whack the racist. In fact, I was going to ignore Leutisha but then Sarah and Camille jumped in to support her. so, i felt obligated to whack away.

But you're right. I did find Leutisha more irritating. I don't think white racism is prevalent enough to hold POC back. But the racism we impose upon ourselves is a much more powerful thing. to deny ourselves the diversity of thought that whites take for granted has had the practical effect of relegating the world most failed policies to POC and the world's most successful ideologies to whites. Or as Arthur Schlesinger jr once said of multiculturalism: "If some Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan wanted to devise an educational curriculum for the specific purpose of handicapping and disabling black Americans, he would not be likely to come up with anything more diabolically effective than Afrocentrism."

Secondly, I'd like to know what you think about this, as it, to some degree represents my position.

I'm almost at a loss for words HMF. I found Farakhan weird, pedantic, and anti-semetic. The words may be OK, but the music's off-key. He's like David Duke, who is usually smart enough to not say anything too racist, but you can sense the hatred and resentment bubbling up beneath the surface. I think I need a shower.

Yes, I would think it was racist. Blacks pictured as slaves or servants bowing to the white... racist. But I believe that you and others are handpicking what you want to see in this picture in order to see racism: that they are not dressed as sprinters, and that the "bowing" is not the starting position of a sprinter. Furthermore, besides blacks being depicted as athletes which in our popular culture are glorified regardless of race, they also represent an employee of the company, which is quite evident in the fact that each of them has a desk. So their position is not of a slave or a coolie, but of a high paying job in either form - as an athlete or as an employee.

I see your point - Indians dressed up as coolies and African Americans as sprinters isn't a really good comparison ---- maybe if it was a white guy in the middle, surrounded by indians dressed in cricket gear ad --- would that be a problem for you?

I'd have a problem with that b/c too much of the old colonial reverberations of white man who controls and leads and Indians are the worker bees.

As far as the black athlete being glorified - I don't agree with this at all. Blacks predominance in certain athletic events has been used in the idea that blacks are "better" for physical feats as opposed to thinking feats --- it's not uncommon notion in this country; I've even heard this among desis. Recently I know there have been sports commentators who have been suspended for saying comments like, "blacks are better at sports.." etc. This ad to me fuels that notion.

globalization's intent is not to empower traditionally 'held back' minorities in the US.

HMF: Have you studied the history of communism? The concept of false conciousness and Marx's critque of Locke? Marx set up a system of thought that isolated itself from criticism. A Marxist does not address an argument head-on, but rather deconstructs it; ie exposes the class privilege behind the argument. so liberalism, in this world view, was not a legitimate alternative, but merely a cover for the class interests of the bourgeoisie. It's a sophisticated form of ad-hominem, not unlike #2 in sarah's link.

i'm probably getting a tad too esoteric here, but all i'm saying is that the Marxists were brilliant and well-intentioned in their desire to help the working class. yet they created a society only rivaled by Orwell’s. and it was very predictable to anyone who took Marxist theory seriously.

so i'm not really concerned about intent.

Fair enough Manju. I appreciate your POV, it just stuck me that there is a consistent slant to the nonsense you respond to , and the things that you let slide, but that's human.

But the racism we impose upon ourselves is a much more powerful thing. to deny ourselves the diversity of thought that whites take for granted has had the practical effect of relegating the world most failed policies to POC and the world's most successful ideologies to whites.

Agree with that, however as I've said many times (on this blog) I think for, most/many "Americans" race=class. For some older African Americans, or those who didn't really see any positive "black behavior" growing up, it's difficult for them to intellectually separate their skin color from negative pathologies. Their thinking, is still in a paradigm, that color codes success with "white". To distance themselves from a negative "authenticity" some racialize characteristics that have nothing to do with skin color. That was my point about 'self haters'. Do I think many popular "icons" in the music industry exhibit a self hate? Yes. However I expect a bit more from people who don't walk around with their bullet holes& underpants showing.

I see your point - Indians dressed up as coolies and African Americans as sprinters isn't a really good comparison ---- maybe if it was a white guy in the middle, surrounded by indians dressed in cricket gear ad --- would that be a problem for you? I'd have a problem with that b/c too much of the old colonial reverberations of white man who controls and leads and Indians are the worker bees.

Perhaps it wouldn't bother me. Perhaps the idea of several indians with bats surrounding a white guy could be interpreted by some - as non-white's latent aggression towards whites. Who knows? I do think, objectively speaking, that this Intel ad is by all measures a failure, no matter how good their intentions were.

"I'm almost at a loss for words HMF. I found Farakhan weird, pedantic, and anti-semetic. The words may be OK, but the music's off-key."

Seriously, what kind of criticism is this? weird and pedantic? the music is off? I understand your mind is colonialized and a bit white-washed, but I had no idea it ran that deep. The mere appearance of Farrakahan just sets off your innate anti Jewish sensors? If statements of Louis Farakhans like that ran more in US MSM rather than just al Jazeera, I do believe there'd be a different view of him.The only thing that can be categorized as remotely anti-Jewish is the "Jewish behavior" comment, yet he was clear to distinguish it from the Christian hatred against the Jews for their religion.

Take a shower go ahead, and lay off the Irish spring.

"Have you studied the history of communism?"

No I haven't. it's unclear how all that mumbo jumbo you spewed relates to my contention that, the qualities you said you embrace (or at least would like to) when viewed in an american context take on different meaning.

Manju, you are clearly an agent of Yakub

I don't think Yakub outsources.

HMF, Why do you prefer to talk about Farakhan instead progressive african americans like Harry Belafonte or Barack Obama?

Dave, don't get me wrong here, I'm not an outright follower of Farrakhan or the NOI. I can safely say I know more about their history than most, because it's something I've looked at in detail, and I've actually spoken with some current and ex-members. I remember meeting a 60 year old ex member who knew Benjamin 2X (Benjamin Karim), who heard Malcolm speak once and sent me some footage of an early speech of his.

I wasn't the one to bring up Farrakhan or the NOI in this discussion, rather it was Manju who did. (#221 & #224) As a matter of fact it wasn't even me who brought the Jewish question up (# 126) it seems he's quite the master-baiter.

HMF, Why do you prefer to talk about Farakhan instead progressive african americans like Harry Belafonte or Barack Obama?

Maybe HMF is John Ford/Fard Muhammad, the Founder of NOI, returned from his period of occultation. One theory these days is that this mysterious founder of the NOI was the son of a desi-Muslim father and a kiwi-Brit mom. It's at least as likely as Intel intentionally insulting a significant section of its customer base

I understand your mind is colonialized and a bit white-washed, but I had no idea it ran that deep.

I'd respond, HMF, but the GAP is closing soon and I need some Khakis.

No I haven't. it's unclear how all that mumbo jumbo you spewed relates to my contention that, the qualities you said you embrace (or at least would like to) when viewed in an american context take on different meaning.

well, to put it another way, whether or not the free market is good for POC is debatable. Not everthing is an issue like aparthied, where the postion a POC would take is relatively ovbvious. I know how you feel since you're certain about your politics. I think its pretty obvious that globalization is good for India, but I still don't believe Arundhati Roy suffers from self-hatred.

I wasn't the one to bring up Farrakhan or the NOI in this discussion, rather it was Manju who did. (#221 & #224)

#177: "Most of the 'Jewish exploitation of black' literature comes from the nation of islam and other such sites, which will always be classified as 'hate speech' "

it seems he's quite the master-baiter.

i applaud your colourful double-entendre, HMF, but I doubt you can keep it up.

I'm with Dave on this one (at least for his comments post-#252).

But the fact of the matter is that Indians have a skin colour similar to blacks and hispanics, and we are currently the most successful ethnic minority in the US (and indeed in the UK). Obviously, we have it much easier now than blacks and jews had it 50 years back, and such success would never happen in the 1950s where there were laws that would have prevented us from achieving what we have today. Obviously, I do believe that the legacy of repression certainly has its effects in the black community today, but I don't believe that skin colour is a handicap to success at this day and age.

Louie, interesting theory about John Ford/Fard Muhammad. A "new age" religion/spiritual idea introduced to America by an entrepreneurial desi?

One thing this discussion has missed is the actual slave-like labor that goes into the production of computer parts. The racist image of the black men bowing to the white male is a slip not only exposing the notion of white privilege and the racism that goes on in white collar offices but also the living and working conditions of those people who make computer parts. For all you Marxists out there, your analysis should not stop at your own experience of office spaces in the center of global trade.

One thing this discussion has missed is the actual slave-like labor that goes into the production of computer parts.

Insenstive, yes... but you see what you want to see. They aren't bowing, they're "sprinters." It's a metaphor, not a racial slur. A bad idea. But have a clue, they're not bowing.