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.