• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

Even though I know this is a bad idea, I’m off to do it anyway!

We’re not going back!

Meanwhile over at truth Social, the former president is busy confessing to crimes.

I conferred with the team and they all agree – still not tired of winning!

Bad news for Ron DeSantis is great news for America.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

Donald Trump, welcome to your everything, everywhere, all at once.

Tick tock motherfuckers!

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

The most dangerous place for a black man in America is in a white man’s imagination.

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

The line between political reporting and fan fiction continues to blur.

If West Virginia and San Francisco had a love child.

If you still can’t see these things even now, maybe politics isn’t your forte and you should stop writing about it.

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

They are lying in pursuit of an agenda.

Wake up. Grow up. Get in the fight.

I did not have this on my fuck 2022 bingo card.

“What are Republicans afraid of?” Everything.

Maybe you would prefer that we take Joelle’s side in ALL CAPS?

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Civil Rights / Racial Justice / Kiss My Black Ass / Pepsi Max: Hide Your White Women

Pepsi Max: Hide Your White Women

by Imani Gandy (ABL)|  February 7, 201112:03 am| 271 Comments

This post is in: Kiss My Black Ass, Vagina Outrage

FacebookTweetEmail

It just had to be a young white girl, didn’t it?

Aside from that fact that it is utterly ridiculous that whoever squeezed out this turd thinks diet soda has to be called “MAX” or “EXXXTREME” lest guys feel too “gay” drinking it, this ad is lazy, stupid, and ultimately offensive. I get that companies market to black people, so fine: I don’t care about the angry black harpy stereotype about black women, or the “my woman thinks i can’t do anything right” stereotype about black men (all men, really). It was the “black man’s carnal lust for the white girl” stereotype that carried this commercial from stupid to downright offensive. I mean, would it have been so hard to pick a girl of any other race?

Good thing I prefer Coke.

Disapproving Don Draper is disapproving.

Disapproving Don Draper is disapproving.

[cross-posted here at Angry Black Lady Chronicles]

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Best Commericals
Next Post: Early Morning Open Thread: Three Amigos »

Reader Interactions

271Comments

  1. 1.

    MikeJ

    February 7, 2011 at 12:08 am

    Don Draper drinks coffee and Old Fashioneds. He does not drink Pepsi Maxxxxxx.

  2. 2.

    electricgrendel

    February 7, 2011 at 12:09 am

    What in the high holy hell? Did I seriously just watch that? Jesus H what a racist pile of shit.

  3. 3.

    sistermoon

    February 7, 2011 at 12:11 am

    Amen, ABL

    I was part of a multiracial group watching the game, and the initial group reaction to the ad was, “they’ve gotta be kidding… during Black History Month?”

    Cue Pepsico apology in 5…4…

  4. 4.

    Violet

    February 7, 2011 at 12:11 am

    That ad was okay until the end. The main part of it played on dumb male/female stereotypes, but it wasn’t seriously offensive, just dumb. But the last bit with the white girl…I think my jaw dropped. Just WTF was that about? What were they thinking?

  5. 5.

    Morbo

    February 7, 2011 at 12:12 am

    Indeed, this ad did not go over well in the Super Bowl AIM chat that I was party to.

    ETA: It’s like they saw the State Farm ad that has been retrospectively edited down and thought “hey, that ad didn’t make black women look bitchy enough.”

  6. 6.

    Yutsano

    February 7, 2011 at 12:13 am

    To quote the greatest bat ever:

    Uhh…wow.

    That is going to be generating quite a few phone calls for Pepsico. And just like Groupon, they deserve all the shit they’re about to get. This also strengthens my anti-soda stance mightily.

  7. 7.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 12:14 am

    I watched it again, just to make sure I didn’t miss anything. Yes, you’re black and I’m white, so we’re going to see different things, but I honestly don’t get what’s so offensive. He was smiling at her! It wasn’t “carnal lust!” And she smiled back! If she had looked afraid or started screaming that someone was assaulting her, then I’d see your case. Black people and white people can interact without it being a secret racist code. Black actors can do commercials without it being a commentary on blackness. I don’t even see how it’s a commentary on marketing to blacks-Pepsi had other commercials that featured other races.

  8. 8.

    Trentrunner

    February 7, 2011 at 12:14 am

    But aren’t white women less trouble because they don’t sass and get on your ass to get a job and shit?

    That’s what I learned from watching The Jeffersons.

  9. 9.

    Scamp Dog

    February 7, 2011 at 12:15 am

    I think the sheer stupidity of it may be worse than the racism, but it’s a close call. Ya gotta wonder if this will actually attract more people that it ticks off.

  10. 10.

    Karen in GA

    February 7, 2011 at 12:15 am

    Ah, the old comedic Superbowl standbys, the nagging wife and the injured woman. Now with extra racial bullshit!

  11. 11.

    Allan

    February 7, 2011 at 12:16 am

    I’m sure Pepsi PR folk will helpfully point out that in their other ad, the senseless violence with the soda can was white–on–white, so they’re fair and balanced.

  12. 12.

    Warren Terra

    February 7, 2011 at 12:17 am

    There was another Pepsi Max ad in the fourth quarter that didn’t (iirc) touch on race but even without mining that especially rich seam of cultural stupidity or treading that minefield it nonetheless managed to be at least as stupid and offensive.

    I swear, most of the ads I saw this Superbowl made me think there’s a mint to be made in running special asshole-slapping tours of Madison Avenue.

  13. 13.

    Allan

    February 7, 2011 at 12:18 am

    @Spaghetti Lee: It’s not like people have any negative associations with groups of black people assaulting white women in parks or anything.

  14. 14.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 12:18 am

    @Allan:

    And in their third ad, the mindless male horniness vs. female bitchiness was white-on-white.

  15. 15.

    MattR

    February 7, 2011 at 12:19 am

    I actually had the exact opposite reaction and thought “Thank God they didn’t reverse the casting and have the white woman hit a black girl with the can”. None of the white folks I was with made any connection to the idea of it playing on the “angry black lady” or “black man lusting after white woman” stereotypes.

  16. 16.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 12:20 am

    @Allan:

    Well, yeah, but the joke was that the assault was accidental (or at least directed at someone else.) If they had, say, gone for her wallet after they had cold-cocked her, then I’d probably say it’s racist.

  17. 17.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 12:21 am

    @MattR: That commercial would never be made because you know, black woman / white man = a no-no.

  18. 18.

    TooManyJens

    February 7, 2011 at 12:21 am

    @Spaghetti Lee: The thing is, they didn’t just trip and cast a white woman. They made a choice. And it’s worth asking why they made that choice. To me (disclaimer: white girl here), it seemed as though they were going for a woman that the man’s wife would feel threatened by. That’s the whole joke; it’s why she throws the can. So why deliberately choose a white woman for that particular role? Are white women more attractive than any other women? Are black men particularly susceptible to them? There are some gross racial tropes that the casting of a white woman in that role calls to mind.

  19. 19.

    Joey Maloney

    February 7, 2011 at 12:23 am

    o/t

    ARRRRRRRRRGH

    No one could have predicted at my streaming broadcast tv service that the Super Bowl would result in a huge bulge of new signups and signins, so much so that their entire farking network would collapse. I didn’t see one single play of the game.

    I’m told by those who stuck around that the system slowly came back online about 90 minutes in. But kickoff for me was 1 am local time so after about 45 minutes I just said fuck it and went to sleep.

    Was the game play itself fun enough to watch, that’ll be worth it for me to find a torrent for it or something?

  20. 20.

    Pseudonym

    February 7, 2011 at 12:23 am

    It might have been funny if, instead, the woman had attacked the writers who came up with this idea.

  21. 21.

    emdee

    February 7, 2011 at 12:25 am

    As The New York Times blog points out, but Pepsi itself did not, this was one of six commercials for Doritos and Pepsi Max that were created by outsiders, as part of their apparently annual “Crash the Super Bowl” contest to make your own ad and get it aired during the big game. (NFL Network had a show on Saturday night about the ads, showed all six of them, and mentioned the contest.)

    I’m hearing a lot of criticism of all of the “user-generated” ads, so maybe the Mad Men decided to play down the contest so they’d look more like geniuses compared to the regular public? Dunno, and there’s still that Pepsico aired this ad and that it won the contest by whatever rules, but there ya go.

  22. 22.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 12:26 am

    @TooManyJens:

    I think the wife would be mad at her husband ogling a girl of any race. That’s what the joke was, more than race: horny man vs. clingy wife. That’s a joke as old as time, and it’s been used by many races. And there’s plenty of hot latina or asian actresses out there to choose from. I mean, yeah, the white actress wasn’t randomly assigned or anything, but to go from that to thinking that they did because they wanted to invoke stereotypes about black lust for white women is, I think, kind of a jump. Like I said, people who happen to be black and white can interact without it being a secret message. Maybe I’m just oblivious, but I think a lot of people are attaching a hidden malevolence that isn’t there.

    For what it’s worth, I’m just being swamped by ads for interracial and black-centered dating sites right now, so yay equality.

  23. 23.

    MattR

    February 7, 2011 at 12:28 am

    @TooManyJens: As a white man, my first thought (and based on the laughs of my white married friends) was that this was a “typical” controlling wife/whipped husband scenario and he made the mistake of glancing at any other woman other than his wife.

    IMO, Pepsi was in a no win situation. If all their commercials were all white, they would get criticized. If they made a set of all white commercials and a set of all black commercials they would be criticized. If the couple was mixed race and the girl was the same race as the husband they would get criticized. I personally don’t think there was any deeper meaning behind the casting and I think that you and ABL and many others do see something there is not paranoia, but a sign that we still have problems in our society that we need to work on (so that they don’t jump into the forefront of our minds as easily)

  24. 24.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 12:28 am

    @emdee: Actually filmed by users (end product)or just came up with the concept?

  25. 25.

    Anya

    February 7, 2011 at 12:29 am

    This ad reminded me of black man’s kryptonite from Undercover Brother

  26. 26.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 12:31 am

    @MattR: I like your take on this better than Spaghetti Lee negating what others feel they are seeing.
    ETA: not an attack on you, Spaghetti Lee

  27. 27.

    PanAmerican

    February 7, 2011 at 12:31 am

    See, it would have been OK had he sprayed his abusive wife and the jogger down with the beverage and par-tay’d down.

    Well, you should have seen the cover they *wanted* to do! It wasn’t a glove, believe me.

  28. 28.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 12:31 am

    I also tuned in too late to see the Barack/Billo scrum. I haven’t seen anyone talk about it either, so I’ll assume it was kind of a non-event?

  29. 29.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 12:32 am

    @wobblybits:

    I’m not trying to “negate” anyone’s opinion, just offering mine.

  30. 30.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 12:34 am

    @Spaghetti Lee: Yes, but in offering yours, you were telling others that what they see isn’t legitimate.

  31. 31.

    handy

    February 7, 2011 at 12:34 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    That was painful to watch. Billo is really dumb. Really. Really. Really dumb.

  32. 32.

    Sly

    February 7, 2011 at 12:35 am

    The “unbearable and bitchy black woman” is as old as the “black man who lusts after white woman” stereotype. The two actually reinforce each other. In that particular ad, however, I thought the former was a bit more present and offensive than the latter. Even if you changed her to an Asian girl or a Latina, the basic racist framework would still be there.

    But then I thought the white girl was pretty cute, and immediately assumed her to be pretty cute to any man who is neither gay nor dead. So I’m probably biased in this one respect.

  33. 33.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 12:36 am

    @wobblybits: nevermind

  34. 34.

    emdee

    February 7, 2011 at 12:36 am

    @wobblybits: No one was talking much about the contest, so I don’t know. I thought it was filmed by the users. Let me find some linkage…

    According to the contest site, they were supposed to shoot the commercial to submit it. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t recast or reshot by Pepsico, but I don’t have the eyes at this hour to read all that tiny print. The commercials as aired are on the site as “winners” and others are just marked “finalist.”

    If you made me guess, I’d say it was submitted the way we saw it.

  35. 35.

    gwangung

    February 7, 2011 at 12:36 am

    we’re gonna get a bunch of mansplaining responses now, aren’t we?

  36. 36.

    Anya

    February 7, 2011 at 12:37 am

    @Spaghetti Lee: Billo was as obnoxious as ever. He was disrespectful, nervious and uncouth. He asked the President: “Does it disturb you that so many people hate you?” What an asshole!

  37. 37.

    TooManyJens

    February 7, 2011 at 12:38 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    I mean, yeah, the white actress wasn’t randomly assigned or anything, but to go from that to thinking that they did because they wanted to invoke stereotypes about black lust for white women is, I think, kind of a jump.

    Not going to speak for ABL here, but that’s not what I’m claiming at all. It’s much more likely (but still insidious) that they were thinking “OK, here we need to cast someone as attractive as possible,” and … then went with a white person. You know what I mean? Not that they were consciously thinking “white women are more attractive” but that that’s who came to mind when they were thinking “what kind of woman would a man ogle?” and possibly even “who would this black man ogle?”

    There is a history in our society of considering white women the standard of beauty, and there is a history of discomfort with the idea of black men being attracted to white women. People in the advertising industry often seem to be not very reflective about the messages they’ve absorbed from society (witness the massive amounts of stupid, lazy sexism in advertising), so it’s not exactly out of bounds to suggest that the choice of a white woman might have something to do with those messages.

  38. 38.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 12:39 am

    @emdee: I clicked over to read it but the blaring music just turned me off. I will save it for tomorrow. Thanks for the link.

  39. 39.

    Eric U.

    February 7, 2011 at 12:39 am

    I didn’t think much of the ad as it unfolded, and then the white woman runs up and I said, “uh oh.” The way I see it, once you think of the race of the actors, it’s impossible to end up doing it right.

  40. 40.

    scav

    February 7, 2011 at 12:39 am

    @Anya: Pres. should have just smiled and asked for advice on effective coping techniques.

  41. 41.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 12:39 am

    @Sly:

    Even if you changed her to an Asian girl or a Latina, the basic racist framework would still be there.

    Meaning…what? Black guys should only lust after black women? Wouldn’t that be segregating the races into their own commercial spheres? I’m trying to think of what Pepsi could have done differently here that someone wouldn’t be offended, and I can’t think of anything.

  42. 42.

    TooManyJens

    February 7, 2011 at 12:40 am

    @Eric U.:

    The way I see it, once you think of the race of the actors, it’s impossible to end up doing it right

    I agree, because it’s a lazy, brainless ad.

  43. 43.

    Barb (formerly Gex)

    February 7, 2011 at 12:41 am

    @MattR: Well, they could have had an interracial couple and have the black man eyeball a black woman. I mean, the black man going after white women they shouldn’t is an image that has been used to terrorize whites forever.

  44. 44.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 12:42 am

    power and privilege: we can never quite get away from it, can we?

  45. 45.

    Malcolm

    February 7, 2011 at 12:43 am

    @MattR: “…a sign that we still have problems in our society that we need to work on…”

    Hmmm, surely you’re not suggesting that an ad like that is the way to work on it?

  46. 46.

    Baroness

    February 7, 2011 at 12:44 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    They could’ve tried to write an ad without leaning on tired, offensive racial stereotypes. That’d be a start.

  47. 47.

    suzanne

    February 7, 2011 at 12:44 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    I’m trying to think of what Pepsi could have done differently here that someone wouldn’t be offended, and I can’t think of anything.

    Make a different ad.

  48. 48.

    Ash Can

    February 7, 2011 at 12:45 am

    The ending of that commercial did fall flat for me, and part of the reason was that I did think it was peculiar to have a blond white girl in that situation. Up to that point, though, the scenes of the wife riding her husband’s ass to keep him on his diet made me laugh out loud, because the slapstick tickled my funnybone. Of course, being white, I very often miss things that women of color (any color) tend to notice.

  49. 49.

    Anya

    February 7, 2011 at 12:46 am

    @scav: I think he handled him very well. POTUS was poised and totally unfazed by Billo’s rudeness.

  50. 50.

    Jrod the Cookie Thief

    February 7, 2011 at 12:46 am

    @wobblybits: Is it possible to disagree with a person without “negating” that person’s experience?

    I don’t see anything overtly racist in this ad either, and I don’t see much of a case for it being covertly racist either. Did I just implicitly state that everyone who sees otherwise is delusional and should shut up? Apparently you think so. Me, I think people can disagree.

    I do think the ad was sexist as all hell, though, and if you don’t think so you’re a vile tool of the patriarchy.

  51. 51.

    Barb (formerly Gex)

    February 7, 2011 at 12:47 am

    @suzanne: All they have to do is rearrange the people in a non-stereotypical way. 1) ads don’t like to show interracial couples it seems 2) the black guy with a white woman but eyeballing a black woman totally turns the stereotype on end. You can still get all the main points of the ad while avoiding the racism. But only if you make an effort.

  52. 52.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 12:47 am

    @TooManyJens:

    I get your complaint, and maybe we do need to see more non-white people as placeholders for “sexy woman” (the woman in question, imho, was pretty objectively sexy), but I think you’re kind of transposing “Could have, but didn’t” (cast an asian/latina woman) and “Wouldn’t have”. Because, you know, I don’t think that non-white women really do have the reputation of being unattractive. There’s a stereotypical hot chick out there for every race-spicy Latina, cute Asian woman, etc.

    And if it’s all kind of subconscious/ingrained, like you’re suggesting, I think it’s kind of not something to get mad over, because it’s not really anyone’s “fault.” It’s something that people have to work to change so that people’s sexy actress lists are more multiracial.

  53. 53.

    Arundel

    February 7, 2011 at 12:47 am

    That ad was fucking awful, loaded with bad stereotypes and symbolism and meaning, and I cannot believe some of the lame defenses of it here. Listen to ABL. She’s right, there was so much wrong here, and dear Lord it’s 2011.

    I’d bet this ad was dreamt up by white fratboys somewhere in a cushy office. Like SNL.

    Ballbreaking black woman is jealous and gets violent when hubby looks at a blonde? Just no no no. WTF. And to think they meant this to be humorous, funny. In what fucking world? Even just seeing the blonde knocked unconscious, that’s funny? Brutal culture we live in then, brutal.

  54. 54.

    scav

    February 7, 2011 at 12:47 am

    @Anya: that’s the pres.

  55. 55.

    MattR

    February 7, 2011 at 12:48 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    I’m trying to think of what Pepsi could have done differently here that someone wouldn’t be offended, and I can’t think of anything.

    They could have made the ad with all white actors. If they had, this ad would be a non-issue. But if Pepsi had decided to provide some diversity in their ads by making the couple on a date in another ad mixed race, then there would be complaints about that one.

  56. 56.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 12:49 am

    @Jrod the Cookie Thief: Sure it is, you just did (that is state that you don’t see what the others do). My contention was that in stating it, you don’t have to negate what other people see or feel. Simple as that.

  57. 57.

    JCJ

    February 7, 2011 at 12:50 am

    This ad made me think of the episode of Tosh.0 when he showed a video of some white kid bouncing on a trampoline to dunk a basketball The kid bounces too high and his leg goes in the hoop and then is screaming in pain. Another kid (black) runs away and Tosh’s comment was something like “I hate to point this out, but the black kid is running away. It is probably just as well. Nothing good ever comes from a black guy standing over a screaming white person.” Both made me uncomfortable, but at least Tosh is a comedy show where he ventures into this territory.

  58. 58.

    freelancer

    February 7, 2011 at 12:50 am

    Madison Avenue finds a dumb way to pander to soda drinkers, and makes race an issue when it didn’t need to be. My outrage well has run dry because this is par for the course for all of Pepsi’s ads tonight.

    This is why I drink water, beer, and iced tea (Not Brisk).

  59. 59.

    TooManyJens

    February 7, 2011 at 12:51 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    And if it’s all kind of subconscious/ingrained, like you’re suggesting, I think it’s kind of not something to get mad over, because it’s not really anyone’s “fault.”

    I disagree, because people can get past these ingrained messages if they think. Not every time, not perfectly, but it can be done. I admit, thinking about anything but how to make a buck is probably too much to expect from the advertising industry most of the time, but then that’s one reason I loathe the advertising industry.

    I’m not touching “spicy Latina,” I just can’t.

  60. 60.

    Joel

    February 7, 2011 at 12:51 am

    Holy carp that stupid made me advertisement.

  61. 61.

    scav

    February 7, 2011 at 12:52 am

    @MattR: It’d still be a stale cliched ad for other reasons to no small degree.

  62. 62.

    Brachiator

    February 7, 2011 at 12:52 am

    Most of the Super Bowl commercials were stupid. To get excited over any particular one is a waste of time. To suggest that the Pepsi commercial would be less dumb ass with a different ethnic mix is kinda sad.

    By the way, the marketing people behind most of the Pepsi spots seemed to have their heads deeply up their behinds. Wasn’t it also a Pepsi ad where there was a dating couple with the guy just thinking “sex, sex,sex?” So even though the Super Bowl is supposedly pitched to families, the ads are pitched to guys with two things on their minds, sex and Bud Light.

  63. 63.

    Uncle Clarence Thomas

    February 7, 2011 at 12:53 am

    .
    .
    A noun, a verb, and “racist.”
    .
    .

  64. 64.

    Binzinerator

    February 7, 2011 at 12:53 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    Maybe I’m just oblivious, but I think a lot of people are attaching a hidden malevolence that isn’t there

    You’re oblivious. Or under a cultural rock these past 30-40 years.

    You either live in the South or the Midwest, don’t you?

  65. 65.

    fraught

    February 7, 2011 at 12:54 am

    Was anyone else surprised that the couple ran off holding hands leaving the woman lying on the ground injured? That was the part that upset me because it implied that blacks act like bad kids and run away when they should stay and behave responsibly. Wouldn’t anyone, black or white, immediately apologize and see if the woman needed help? It was an accident after all. Probably no-one would have gotten into trouble.

  66. 66.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 12:54 am

    I have to say that overall (with a few exceptions)the ads were a disappointment. I wish the VW had played the one minute Darth Vader kid ad instead of the shorter ad.

  67. 67.

    Martin

    February 7, 2011 at 12:55 am

    LOL. AOL is buying Huffington Post for $315M. Jesus, is AOL a fuck-up.

  68. 68.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 12:55 am

    @fraught: To be fair (as much as it helps) the black lady did say she was sorry as they were running off.

  69. 69.

    MattR

    February 7, 2011 at 12:56 am

    @scav: No argument there (though that applies to a large percentage of tha ads on TV in general). But nobody would be getting excited about it.

  70. 70.

    freelancer

    February 7, 2011 at 12:57 am

    @Uncle Clarence Thomas:

    Fuck yourself, your name is a race bait.

  71. 71.

    Yutsano

    February 7, 2011 at 12:57 am

    @Martin: Where the hell did AOL get $315 million? Last I heard they were flat broke and barely able to keep the lights on. But I bet Ariana cashes out.

  72. 72.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 12:59 am

    @TooManyJens:

    Well, you know, there’s a reason I called it a stereotype

    @MattR:

    So ensuring that people of different races never interact in commercials would be less racist than having them interact. I think there’s a word for that and it starts with an S. But some people here seem to legitimately think that.

    @Binzinerator:

    Well, I’ve only been alive for 20 of them, so that would be a feat.

    Look everyone, I’m not saying this ad is clever, or that it doesn’t rely on haggling-wife/boorish-husband jokes that are as old as dirt, because it obviously does. All I’m saying is that you can’t say that every time a black person and a white person interact in a fictional setting, that it’s an obvious appeal to hidden racist thoughts.

  73. 73.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 12:59 am

    @TooManyJens: Spicy Latina? Oh my.

  74. 74.

    Baroness

    February 7, 2011 at 1:00 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    I feel it necessary here to point out that there are layers to the “black man lusting for a white woman” trope:
    1) Hide your white women (a la the post title, props to ABL), a really insidious idea that black men would lust after and rape white women if given the chance (we’ve all seen To Kill A Mockingbird, right?)
    2. Subconscious racism. Scientific studies have shown that black and white people will subconsciously choose whiteness as being better, prettier, nicer, and link blackness with crime, drugs, and disease. There’s the whole “good hair” debate. Women of color OFTEN go to great lengths to try and look as much like white women as they can. (Asian women will get plastic surgery, there’s skin-whitening in the US AND in India, etc.) Some black women, therefore, can at least be thought to envy white women (especially ones as good-looking as the nice athletic lady in this ad) this, as it is occasionally the truth.
    3. Racism happened and still exists, at an institutional level, and POCs have a lot of reason yet not to trust white people. This plays out at the personal level. During this conversation I remembered this Jill Scott interview about this trope — when a black man marries a white woman, it invokes the trope that the white women is BETTER somehow just by the merit of being white.
    4. There’d be a whole other level here if the girl was thick but she is not. Let’s just say I’m a thick white girl who has accidentally caused trouble between black ladies and black men just by walking by.

    I may have missed something, if anyone wants to chime in, and if I’m horribly off the mark, I know BJ commentariat, y’all will own me.

  75. 75.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 1:01 am

    @Spaghetti Lee: True but by the same token you can’t say it isn’t an obvious appeal to hidden racist thoughts either and that is the sad part.

  76. 76.

    Sly

    February 7, 2011 at 1:02 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    Meaning…what?

    That black women are so unappealing that black men, the men who are most likely to be around them on a consistent basis and thus are more available as romantic partners, don’t want them.

    It’s an old stereotype. Jefferson once wrote that black women were so abominable that only orangutans wanted to have sex with them. Considering Sally Hemings, he presumably thought they were good enough to rape.

  77. 77.

    AnotherBruce

    February 7, 2011 at 1:03 am

    I don’t get why more people aren’t offended by the violence of the ad. WTF is funny about getting slammed in the head by a full can of soda and then having the people who did it run away while you’re laying in agony on the ground?

  78. 78.

    MattR

    February 7, 2011 at 1:04 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    So ensuring that people of different races never interact in commercials would be less racist than having them interact.

    No. I would say that casting all white actors will generally make your ads less likely to be accused of having racial undertones. Ironically, the “safest” thing for a company to do is to have an all white cast even though that is clearly a more racist approach

  79. 79.

    Uncle Clarence Thomas

    February 7, 2011 at 1:04 am

    @freelancer:
    .
    .

    Fuck yourself, your name is a race bait.

    My goodness gracious, you are certainly a most angry and uncivil balloonbagger. Everybody knows I use a Coke can on my white wife.

    I will accept your apology if it is sincere and civil.
    .
    .

  80. 80.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 1:05 am

    @AnotherBruce: I believe someone up thread brought that same point up. Seems like many of the ads were fraught with violence. I didn’t get the test baby being slammed against a glass wall in the home vacation ad.

  81. 81.

    Lesley

    February 7, 2011 at 1:06 am

    That ad was the worst. Blech.

  82. 82.

    stickler

    February 7, 2011 at 1:07 am

    Let’s be honest here, everyone. ABL and Don Draper are both correct: this ad wallowed in lameness. Didn’t need to, but happily chose to wade right in to the lame lagoon.

    The question is: why? (the answer is: because! Rich white fratboys run our advertising companies, investment banks, and the Senate!)

    EDIT: and, depressingly enough, I’m not being sarcastic.

  83. 83.

    scav

    February 7, 2011 at 1:07 am

    @MattR: and to think that attaining the lowest common denominator of dreck is an goal that evidently escapes them.

  84. 84.

    freelancer

    February 7, 2011 at 1:08 am

    @Baroness:

    No, I think you pretty much got it. My feeling is that I couldn’t care less, it’s a very dumb ad. And I remarked to my dad, who I was watching the game with, that the ads seemed WAAAAY less sexist/mysogynist than they did last year. Aside from this, and a few others, this year seemed like an improvement on that front, even if they did seem more plastic.

  85. 85.

    Baroness

    February 7, 2011 at 1:11 am

    @freelancer:
    Besides the other Pepsi Max ad which managed to be overall sexist to everybody.

    But it *was* better overall. A step up from dreck into mediocrity once those two outlying crap ads step aside.

  86. 86.

    sherifffruitfly

    February 7, 2011 at 1:12 am

    I especially love how the gist of the story is that: nothing unites black folks like running away from the scene of a crime against pretty white women.

    It’s just how we white folks are. (shrug) Sorry.

    lols.

  87. 87.

    gwangung

    February 7, 2011 at 1:12 am

    And if it’s all kind of subconscious/ingrained, like you’re suggesting, I think it’s kind of not something to get mad over, because it’s not really anyone’s “fault.”

    a) if it’s no one’s fault, then nobody should be defensive if someone gets mad;

    b) if you don’t get mad about it, you get told, “Well, you really can’t make the case for it” if you do point it out.

  88. 88.

    MattR

    February 7, 2011 at 1:13 am

    @wobblybits: To be fair, one of the first commercials of the game was one where the pug runs through the glass door and knocks it off its hinges on top of the guy holding the Doritos. (EDIT: Meaning we had equal opportunity violence. And now I think of Rosanne Barr getting hit by the giant log in the Snickers commercial)

  89. 89.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 1:14 am

    @wobblybits:

    Again, I don’t think it’s a realistic idea. That’s why I referred to it as a stereotype.

    @Baroness:

    1) I understand that. And if he had started, say, groping her or making animalistic noises, I’d be a lot more suspicious of it. All they did, however, was smile at each other.

    2) Well, those are some big issues, but I’m not sure how they relate here. If there had been an ad where a black guy made passes at a white woman, and his black wife tried to make herself look more white, that would certainly be racist.

    3) when a black man marries a white woman, it invokes the trope that the white women is BETTER somehow just by the merit of being white.

    That may be true, but what exactly are the implications for that? That black men should stay true to their race? That’s not any better.

    @Sly:

    Well sure, but I think that this played more on the nagging-wife trope, and anyone who fits that trope is going to come across as unpleasant whatever race they are.

    @wobblybits:

    Well, I’m just wondering about how some of the people are interpreting this ad. It’s almost like they think that black and white people should only be portrayed acting in a certain way to each other. I think the ultimate defeat of racism would be if all these “connotations” and hidden meanings just didn’t matter anymore, and when people acted a certain way, it would be attributed to what kind of person they are, not their race.

  90. 90.

    Martin

    February 7, 2011 at 1:16 am

    @Yutsano: They weren’t that broke, but they are now. Remember when AOL bought Time Warner for $164B? I know people that could buy AOL.

  91. 91.

    Linnaeus

    February 7, 2011 at 1:16 am

    I was more struck by the can-throwing; it seemed to say to me “there go those violent black people again.”

  92. 92.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 1:17 am

    @MattR: Like I said, the commercials were fraught with violence. That Snickers/Roseanne commercial made me cringe.

    ETA: I didn’t see the pug commercial

  93. 93.

    freelancer

    February 7, 2011 at 1:18 am

    The alternate title to this post should be “Pop Intruder”.

  94. 94.

    Angry Black Lady

    February 7, 2011 at 1:21 am

    @wobblybits: Seriously.

  95. 95.

    Angry Black Lady

    February 7, 2011 at 1:22 am

    @suzanne: Yup.

  96. 96.

    MattR

    February 7, 2011 at 1:23 am

    @wobblybits: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpjaOUjUPUc

  97. 97.

    Angry Black Lady

    February 7, 2011 at 1:24 am

    @Barb (formerly Gex): That would be far too cerebral for “the masses,” but totally.

  98. 98.

    Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)

    February 7, 2011 at 1:26 am

    The feed I was watching, ESPN America, had no commercials (yes!) and some strange commentators I’d never heard before.

    I think I’d be willing to pay a yearly fee not to be marketed to. It is so damn dehumanizing.

  99. 99.

    J. Michael Neal

    February 7, 2011 at 1:27 am

    @Martin:

    They weren’t that broke, but they are now. Remember when AOL bought Time Warner for $164B? I know people that could buy AOL.

    Other way around. Time Warner paid a ridiculous sum to buy AOL. The working theory is that the guys in charge of AOL knew the gig was up and cashed out. Note that it was a cash deal, rather than a stock deal.

  100. 100.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 1:28 am

    Am I still in moderation? Cripes. I looked for hidden names of dong pills and everything. I tried to reply to four people at once, will that break my post?

  101. 101.

    MattR

    February 7, 2011 at 1:29 am

    @Spaghetti Lee: Yep. You get three links per post (with each “reply to” counting as a link)

  102. 102.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 1:31 am

    @MattR: wow, that was 30 seconds of my life that I will never get back.

  103. 103.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 1:32 am

    Thanks, MattR.
    wobblybits:

    Again, I don’t think it’s a realistic idea. That’s why I referred to it as a stereotype.

    @Baroness:

    1) I understand that. And if he had started, say, groping her or making animalistic noises, I’d be a lot more suspicious of it. All they did, however, was smile at each other.

    2) Well, those are some big issues, but I’m not sure how they relate here. If there had been an ad where a black guy made passes at a white woman, and his black wife tried to make herself look more white, that would certainly be racist.

    3) when a black man marries a white woman, it invokes the trope that the white women is BETTER somehow just by the merit of being white.

    That may be true, but what exactly are the implications for that? That black men should stay true to their race? That’s not any better.

  104. 104.

    Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)

    February 7, 2011 at 1:33 am

    Further, it is patently absurd that advertisers should waste their time and mine given my rarefied tastes and emptified bank account.

  105. 105.

    MikeJ

    February 7, 2011 at 1:33 am

    Person a (generally a white guy) says: If we ignore race sometimes it will naturally come up with black man ogling white girl, black woman assaulting her. It’s pure chance and the racism is in your mind.

    person b: says you can’t watch spots in a vacuum all media products exist inside its culture. Pretending racism or sexism don’t exist doesn’t mean they don’t exist. If you exhibit stereotypically racist behavior, people will think you are a racist, even if you aren’t. Wouldn’t it be smarter not to?

  106. 106.

    Viva BrisVegas

    February 7, 2011 at 1:34 am

    @Sly:

    Jefferson once wrote that black women were so abominable that only orangutans wanted to have sex with them. Considering Sally Hemings, he presumably thought they were good enough to rape.

    But Hemings was family. That makes all the difference in the South.

  107. 107.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 1:36 am

    ETA: to remove comment to a post that has disappeared. So instead…who watched the Puppy Bowl?

  108. 108.

    Jeanne ringland

    February 7, 2011 at 1:36 am

    @MattR: Neither did the mixed-race crowd at the party we attended. Everyone burst out laughing at the end.

    I’m bound to see things differently from other people because I’m not them. I thought he was smiling at the white girl because she was young and cute, not because he was lusting after her.

  109. 109.

    Joel

    February 7, 2011 at 1:37 am

    Smartphones: the cure for advertisements.

  110. 110.

    Jeanne ringland

    February 7, 2011 at 1:38 am

    @TooManyJens: I thought she was threatened because the white girl was younger.

    Ok, I’m just blinded by my own whiteness I guess.

  111. 111.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 1:39 am

    @MikeJ:

    I agree with that. What I’m saying is that I don’t see how the people in that ad acted racist. Like I said, they could have done a number of different things that would have made it clearly racist (like going for the white girl’s wallet, for example, or the black guy saying “Dayum, you lookin fiiiine” or something like that), but I don’t think “Guy ogles hot girl, wife gets angry”, is “stereotypically racist” behavior. And yeah, physical violence, but that’s kind of the nature of super bowl commercials.

  112. 112.

    MattR

    February 7, 2011 at 1:40 am

    @wobblybits: I just turned it on. (And I apologize for aiding and abetting that waste of 30 seconds)

  113. 113.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 1:40 am

    @Spaghetti Lee: Dayum, you lookin fiiiine? Do black men really talk like that?

    ETA: Nevermind the question. I know this is a possible teaching moment but I just …can’t.

  114. 114.

    Joel

    February 7, 2011 at 1:41 am

    @MikeJ: To be fair, you could argue it til’ sundown but in cases like these it really is up for interpretation. I didn’t find the advertisement racist. I did, however, find it offensive in the way that so much popular culture is (dehumanizing and stupid).

  115. 115.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 1:42 am

    @MattR: I’m curious as to how that commercial would make one want to buy Doritos. You have any ideas?

  116. 116.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 1:43 am

    @wobblybits:

    THAT’S WHY I SAID IT WOULD HAVE BEEN RACIST IF THEY DID THAT. That is, in fact, the same explanation I gave for my “spicy latina” comment (that it’s a stereotype that isn’t really factual) but that comment died in moderation.

  117. 117.

    Nerull

    February 7, 2011 at 1:44 am

    @MikeJ:

    So they should be racist in their casting to avoid looking racist?

  118. 118.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 1:45 am

    @Spaghetti Lee: But why would it need to be so over the top stereotyped to be offensive or racist? I don’t get that argument.
    ETA: Actually as pointed out, the black man oogling the white woman is a stereotype (one that cost quite a few black men their lives)

  119. 119.

    CaseyL

    February 7, 2011 at 1:46 am

    In the last thread I mentioned a ruined parking garage in Detroit that revealed an old theater. I had it the wrong way around. I foundthe photo,and it’s a theater that was converted into a parking garage. Still looks surreal, though:

    ETA: URL added because I still don’t know how to work the link macro:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobjagendorf/5124336314/

  120. 120.

    scav

    February 7, 2011 at 1:46 am

    It’s also a little disingenuous to think that because the characters in an ad may or may not have had racism in their hearts to think this stupid ad isn’t re-enforcing racist memes and stereotypes along with its general idiocy.

  121. 121.

    Nerull

    February 7, 2011 at 1:48 am

    I just don’t get the idea that to combat racism we must propagate racism. It doesn’t make any sense to me that because, in the past there were negative stereotypes against interracial attraction/couples we must therefore ensure that white and black people are forever segregated in the media.

    People want to move ‘beyond’ racism – where we see people as people, and not as their race. But no one is willing to start, because hey — other people might still be racist.

  122. 122.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 1:48 am

    @scav: Exactly. You said it much more eloquently than my tired, wine addled mind could.

  123. 123.

    MattR

    February 7, 2011 at 1:49 am

    @wobblybits: That is a question I cannot answer. If you are willing to risk 30 more seconds, at least this commercial focus on the “magic of Doritos”

    PS. This little yellow pup is absolutely adorable

  124. 124.

    Angry Black Lady

    February 7, 2011 at 1:50 am

    @Uncle Clarence Thomas: weird punctuation + dumbass remark = every comment you’ve ever written.

  125. 125.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 1:50 am

    @Nerull: I hope that that isn’t what we’re saying. That is not my opinion at all but we also don’t want to reinforce stereotypes either. It is a sad commentary but the result of a country long infected with racism and not wanting to deal/ talk about it.

  126. 126.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 1:52 am

    @MattR: All is forgiven with that commercial. Very cute.

  127. 127.

    Baroness

    February 7, 2011 at 1:53 am

    @Nerull:

    As stated upthread, it’s THIS pattern (black man, black woman, white woman) that propagates the stereotypes. So if even one of those races were tweaked, it would have been less offensive. They don’t have to be segregated — in fact, part of the problem with this ad is its use of what the writers *think* a black couple should act like and the *problems* it should have.

    This isn’t a playful, cheeky ad that brings up that black men might be attracted to white women. If it was, okay, sure, good for race relations. This is anything but that.

  128. 128.

    Yutsano

    February 7, 2011 at 1:53 am

    @Angry Black Lady: Oh snap. Though again I go by my recommendation of not going there with it.

  129. 129.

    Angry Black Lady

    February 7, 2011 at 1:53 am

    @Spaghetti Lee: no one is saying “every time a black person and a white person interact in a fictional setting, that it’s an obvious appeal to hidden racist thoughts,” i’m saying this time. not every time. this time.

    and no one said anything about appealing to “hidden racist thoughts.”

    oy vey.

  130. 130.

    Barb (formerly Gex)

    February 7, 2011 at 1:54 am

    @MikeJ: Well, when I try to get friends stop using the word faggot, the answer seems to be no, no we refuse to avoid looking like a hater. The gist seems to be that it is wrong to ask someone not to say fag, but it isn’t wrong to ask someone not to ask someone not to say fag.

    I boil it down to: white male society imbued these words and images with negative connotations in order to offend and insult. Therefore people who find offense and insult in these words and images are correct to do so, whether or not it was consciously intended as such.

    On the fag/gay as insult thing, not only are we expected to not be insulted, but we’re expected to laugh and agree.

  131. 131.

    scav

    February 7, 2011 at 1:55 am

    @Nerull: One can still do it carefully and thoughtfully (see earlier make the whole thing multiracial suggestion), and thought doesn’t seem to be a defining characteristic of this particular marvel.

  132. 132.

    Angry Black Lady

    February 7, 2011 at 1:55 am

    @Yutsano: but it’s like shooting fish in a barrel — metaphorically speaking, of course.

  133. 133.

    Angry Black Lady

    February 7, 2011 at 1:57 am

    @Uncle Clarence Thomas: i shudder to think how you use that coke can on your white wife. eareyemuff your children, folks. this is Balloonbaggers After Dark.

  134. 134.

    Barb (formerly Gex)

    February 7, 2011 at 1:58 am

    @Angry Black Lady: What is fascinating is that despite mentioning this twice in the thread, there are still people arguing that the only way to avoid being stereotypically racist is to have segregated ads. That they can’t even figure out any other configurations to have a diverse cast without reinforcing stereotypes is just sad.

  135. 135.

    Baroness

    February 7, 2011 at 1:59 am

    You know what?

    In retrospect, I blame Tyler Perry.

  136. 136.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 1:59 am

    @wobblybits:

    Look, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Do you think that there are certain things that black men in advertisements should not be allowed to do, in the name of bettering racial relations? And that’s somehow less racist than allowing those black men to be real people and doing those things?

    I mean, I’m all for fighting stereotypes. But the idea behind breaking down stereotypes is that it helps people understand that the people those stereotypes apply to are, in fact, real people, and not the sum of stereotypes. If you think people of a certain race should only be portrayed as behaving in a way at right angles to those stereotypes, and showing them in more varied ways is racist, then how does that help the cause? It’s just the other side of the problematic coin.

  137. 137.

    Yutsano

    February 7, 2011 at 2:00 am

    @Angry Black Lady: Oh I’ve used it as a cat toy before, but it just goes off in ersatz indignation and continues to provide nothing to the discourse. Now I’m just bored with it, I confess. Since it chose to impersonate the least intellectually rigorous and most unremarkable Supreme Court justice of the modern era I guess I shouldn’t be too shocked at that. Let’s face it: Thomas will never be noted for any legal opinion he ever writes period. Acting like a clown in his name just reinforces that point.

    I’m ranting. At least I think I’m ranting. I feel better now though.

  138. 138.

    fuckwit

    February 7, 2011 at 2:00 am

    I got it. Being white, I wouldn’t have gotten it, but I grew up listening to PE, and so, thanks to “Polly Wanna Cracker”, I’m at least peripherally aware of the huge politically-loaded issue of successful black men choosing white women and how outraged black women can get over it. Chuck D, Professor Griff, and Flava Flav schooled my pasty-white ass way back when.

  139. 139.

    Joseph Nobles

    February 7, 2011 at 2:01 am

    OT: Lawrence Wright’s article on Paul Haggis, the “apostate” confronting the Church of Scientology, just hit the tubes.

  140. 140.

    Triassic Sands

    February 7, 2011 at 2:02 am

    What an offensive ad — on so many levels.

    Before seeing that ad, I had no reason to want to drink Pepsi Max. Now I have no reason to want to drink it and a huge reason to NOT drink it. Well done, Pepsi.

    Why is it that people being mean to each other or acting stupidly is supposed to appeal to me and make me want to buy a product? Anyone watching ads in America today would have to conclude that we are a bunch of morons who treat each other very badly. Hmmm. I guess that’s pretty accurate.

  141. 141.

    MattR

    February 7, 2011 at 2:03 am

    @Baroness:

    part of the problem with this ad is its use of what the writers think a black couple should act like and the problems it should have.

    I didn’t see anything in that commercial to indicate that the writers thought “this is how black couples act”. It was not like he was trying to eat fried chicken and she gave him watermelon instead. All I saw were a bunch of “jokes” that applied to any/every couple.

  142. 142.

    Angry Black Lady

    February 7, 2011 at 2:04 am

    @Yutsano: i’m sure i’ll get bored too. for now it amuses me, especially because he surely thinks he’s the cleverest boy in his internet machine.

  143. 143.

    MikeJ

    February 7, 2011 at 2:04 am

    @fuckwit: @fuckwit: And that’s where what you did is so offensive to teabaggers. You paid attention to the problems of other people and didn’t merely say, “get over it.” You sir, will never make it in the republican party.

    Congratulations. You’re a human.

  144. 144.

    Angry Black Lady

    February 7, 2011 at 2:06 am

    @MattR: i was wondering how long it would take before someone mentioned fried chicken and watermelon.

    frankly, i thought it would be within the first 25 comments.

    proof that we’re on the road to post-racialism!

    SCIENCE.

  145. 145.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 2:06 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    Look, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Do you think that there are certain things that black men in advertisements should not be allowed to do, in the name of bettering racial relations? And that’s somehow less racist than allowing those black men to be real people and doing those things?

    Not at all and I’m not at all sure how you got that from what I was saying. We were talking about stereotypes and given the history of this country and it’s still ‘racial’ climate, you can’t just pretend that they don’t communicate certain things or idea or prop up a certain discourse. Knowing that they do, it is not necessarily a wise thing to put out such a commercial and not expect/anticipate a negative reaction from people. Is that so hard to understand? That people might, given the history of such stereotypes, find it offensive?

  146. 146.

    Baroness

    February 7, 2011 at 2:08 am

    @MattR:
    Check out ABL’s original post.

    Black harpy wife, can’t-do-anything-right black husband. It’s Tyler Perry’s bread and butter. (And I’m only half-joking.)

    I’m sure that white couples have similar dynamics but THESE stereotypes in particular are *black* stereotypes and in tandem, plus the white girl, it’s a stereotype powderkeg.

  147. 147.

    kdaug

    February 7, 2011 at 2:10 am

    @Martin:

    LOL. AOL is buying Huffington Post for $315M. Jesus, is AOL a fuck-up

    What’s next? Compuserve buying Drudge?

  148. 148.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 2:10 am

    @wobblybits:

    What I’m saying is that if you start thinking that people on TV of certain races shouldn’t do certain things because it furthers the problem, the it’s the same problem you’re trying to fight, just from a different set of rules. People, even fictional ones, should be allowed to act like real people, not the subjects of some social experiment.

  149. 149.

    uila

    February 7, 2011 at 2:10 am

    For me, the scamper off at the end was the final nail in the racist coffin. Straight up minstrelsy.

    There was also an ad that ran in MD opposing a proposed beverage tax. It featured a pissed off woman pushing a shopping cart, sneering about govt intrusion, “they think they know better than me what’s good for my family” teabag bullshit. It actually made me in favor of the tax, it was so obnoxious.

    So yeah, fuck you, soda pop assholes.

  150. 150.

    Arclite

    February 7, 2011 at 2:12 am

    For me, the smile between the white girl & black dude was the least offensive part. Everything before and after was awful, but the stuff that happened at the end was the worst: Black people smash an innocent white girl, then run away. Any decent person would find out if the victim in the accident was okay, these black people do not, ergo they are not decent people, the implication being that black people are not decent.

    A shockingly insensitive ad. It’s almost as if a bunch of white people who knew no black people wrote it based on stereotypes of black people they saw on TV.

  151. 151.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 2:12 am

    @Baroness:

    Um, there’s plenty of white harpy wives/boorish white husbands in a strained marriage out there in media-land. Hell, just check out any sitcom starring a white couple. I don’t see what makes them black stereotypes.

  152. 152.

    Arclite

    February 7, 2011 at 2:13 am

    @MikeJ:

    Don Draper drinks coffee and Old Fashioneds. He does not drink Pepsi Maxxxxxx.

    Randy Marsh drinks margaritas and gets old fashioneds.

  153. 153.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 2:14 am

    @Spaghetti Lee: Why do you keep talking about ‘certain races not being allowed to do certain things’? People can do what ever they want. That isn’t what this is about. But you seem to want to ignore 200+ years of history and often violent racial history in this country that has created these stereotypes. I want to live in Utopia too but I have to live in crappy reality where racism and sexism are alive and well and continuously are portrayed through all media outlets.

    social experiment? You lost me there.

    ABL, maybe you want to take over here. I have to teach in the morning and would rather focus on the upcoming grammar lesson than US history.

  154. 154.

    MattR

    February 7, 2011 at 2:15 am

    Baroness:

    I’m sure that white couples have similar dynamics but THESE stereotypes in particular are black stereotypes

    This is just completely unfair. Those are couple stereotypes. Bill Maher did a bit years ago about the fact that every sitcom couple is a wonderful wife with a dumb slob of a husband who is just happy/lucky to have her (and he is absolutely right).

  155. 155.

    hhex65

    February 7, 2011 at 2:15 am

    Hmm…reading through the comments it seems like a new right-wing meme has emerged:

    “throwing the race can.”

  156. 156.

    Viva BrisVegas

    February 7, 2011 at 2:17 am

    I think it would have worked better if it had been a white guy rather than a white girl. I would have found that funny.

    But that’s just me.

  157. 157.

    freelancer

    February 7, 2011 at 2:17 am

    @Joseph Nobles:

    He’s actually writing a BOOK about Scientology. One hopes it’s as good as his work on 9/11.

  158. 158.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 2:18 am

    @hhex65: you just know this will gain traction, someone notify Tucker Carlson or Matt Drudge.

  159. 159.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 2:20 am

    @wobblybits:

    Yes, I know that they exist. My point is, if you try to deliberately structure things around them to avoid them, that’s a problem by itself. Mostly what I’ve been saying is that I don’t think this ad does evoke them. Yes, I’m aware a lot of people see it differently, that’s their right, but I don’t think this ad is particularly racist towards black people. Black guy looks at white girl and smiles. That’s a “stereotype?” That’s two hundred years of violence? Christ, it’s something that happens every day in reality. And again I ask, what do you propose to do about it, because you seem to think that something should be done. Try to prevent black guys in advertisements from looking at white girls? How does that help solve America’s race problems?

  160. 160.

    Yutsano

    February 7, 2011 at 2:21 am

    @Angry Black Lady: They all do, hon. They all do. They never realize how much they symbolize the ramblings of Macbeth.

  161. 161.

    Arclite

    February 7, 2011 at 2:22 am

    @Joey Maloney:

    Was the game play itself fun enough to watch, that’ll be worth it for me to find a torrent for it or something?

    It was a great game with great plays. The losers were within one score of taking the lead the entire second half of the game.

  162. 162.

    scav

    February 7, 2011 at 2:22 am

    @wobblybits: I somehow don’t think she’s really listening to any of this — I’m beginning to get a free speech means being able to yell fire in a crowded theatre line of defense with a bit of this is how things work in an idealuzed world so what happens in the real world is unimportant vibe and frankly, they’ve probably not convinced anybody and are unlikely to be convinced themselves. Carry on if you feel like it.

  163. 163.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 2:25 am

    @scav:

    Look, I’m trying to understand other points of view here, really I am. And people in the whole thread have been saying I’m ignorant or arguing in bad faith. Is it so hard to think that I’m honestly disagreeing with someone?

  164. 164.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 2:26 am

    @Spaghetti Lee: Okay so you don’t think that but others felt that it did.
    Sigh, did you read the earlier comments where people explained the black man/white woman.

    Christ, it’s something that happens every day in reality. And again I ask, what do you propose to do about it, because you seem to think that something should be done. Try to prevent black guys in advertisements from looking at white girls? How does that help solve America’s race problems?

    You can’t be that simplistic or am I wrong here? We all think that something should be done. But again, you keep bringing up the idea of ‘preventing’ and in this case a black man looking at a white girl. I never said he couldn’t do it in a commercial. What I said is that Pepsi should not be at all surprised that people are going to be offended or find issues with the commercial given what those images convey to segments of the population. Is that clear enough for you now?

  165. 165.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 2:27 am

    @scav: Could be. Could also be privilege at work, could also be a number of things.

  166. 166.

    Baroness

    February 7, 2011 at 2:27 am

    It would be fun to continue to school you guys on this, but I have a three-count limit of derailing attempts. Textbook example, though.

    Just because YOU can’t see stereotypes doesn’t mean they aren’t there, and questioning a POC on the existence of a race issue is kind of a crap thing to do. Telling a person of color that what they’re seeing is not offensive is a phenomenon called “whitesplaining.” MattR, Spaghetti Lee, you’re both doing a lot of it and you are making my White Guilt hurt. Stop that. You can have your opinion, but when it comes to the question of “is this racist,” defer to the person of that minority on the issue. Please.

    ABL, great write-up, I ranted this exactly (but less eloquently) at my Superbowl party.

  167. 167.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 2:30 am

    What I said is that Pepsi should not be at all surprised that people are going to be offended or find issues with the commercial given what those images convey to segments of the population.

    OK, that makes sense. What I’m saying is that people like me should be able to disagree without being called stupid or ignorant or that they’re being capricious.

  168. 168.

    Arclite

    February 7, 2011 at 2:30 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    but I don’t think this ad is particularly racist towards black people.

    If they had apologized and helped her up, I would agree with you (despite the nasty black bitch stereotype of the woman). But a black person assaults a white person and runs away. Even if the writer unintentionally (and I think it was) wrote it that way, the implication is obvious: these people have no class, no compassion, no morals, and they happen to be black. Given the history of the USA, this should have been realized and rewritten. At the very least, it is very poor judgement.

    Ironically, there is an interracial dating banner ad at the bottom of the page for me.

  169. 169.

    Binzinerator

    February 7, 2011 at 2:31 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    All I’m saying is that you can’t say that every time a black person and a white person interact in a fictional setting, that it’s an obvious appeal to hidden racist thoughts.

    Jesus Christ I thought young people weren’t this dense about this shit. Not unless they either want to be or had few opportunities not to be. Oh well like I said, Midwest or the South.

  170. 170.

    Angry Black Lady

    February 7, 2011 at 2:31 am

    @Baroness: No kidding.

  171. 171.

    MattR

    February 7, 2011 at 2:32 am

    The problem seems to be that in the end we want the people making ads to ignore stereotypes in real life, but to remember that they still exist for other people when they make their ads.

    I can understand how people who are more attuned to a specific sterotype would be more likely to see it. I am not sure if others understand how we can be aware of the existence of those stereotypes and yet watch the commercial without seeing them in it.

    @Baroness: Sorry. But you just don’t get to declare that while white couples may go through the same dynamic, something is a black stereotype. That is bullshit, plain and simple. It is completely hypocritical that you are calling me out for not understanding your experience when you yourself don’t have enough experience to understand that white people see the same exact stereotype.

  172. 172.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 2:35 am

    @Arclite:

    Well, I think the thing there is that people in general in commercials are stupid and selfish and social misfits. Plenty of stupid white people in this year’s crop, as always. Like the snooty white preppy who got hit with a groin shot or the white guy on a date who couldn’t stop thinking about sex.

    I think that’s the thing: they happen to be black. There are both black and white people who are both cowardly and exemplary in real life. I didn’t get a “This is what black people are like” vibe so much as a “These two people are idiots, and they happen to be black.”

  173. 173.

    freelancer

    February 7, 2011 at 2:35 am

    I can’t believe that no one has mentioned D. W. Griffiths and Birth of a Nation so far. Narrative cinema began with a racist, talented filmmaker stoking white fear about Black Men out to “steal” White women. In real life, a consequence of this fear was the murder of Emmett Till. And since then, only up until the last decade or so, have filmmakers become even halfway aware of the damages they might have been causing in larger society because of the way they portray and unfairly demagogue large percentages of society. And now we get this retarded Pepsi commercial.

    Bullshit, boy. No victim? I just came from Tosha’s people, remember? All this death, you don’t think it ripples out? You don’t even know what the fuck I’m talking about. I was a few years ahead of you at Edmondson, but I know you remember the neighborhood, how it was. We had some bad boys, for real. Wasn’t about guns so much as knowing what to do with your hands. Those boys could really rack. My father had me on the straight, but like any young man, I wanted to be hard too, so I’d turn up at all the house parties where the tough boys hung. Shit, they knew I wasn’t one of them. Them hard cases would come up to me and say, “Go home, schoolboy, you don’t belong here.” Didn’t realize at the time what they were doing for me. As rough as that neighborhood could be, we had us a community. Nobody, no victim, who didn’t matter. And now all we got is bodies, and predatory motherfuckers like you. And out where that girl fell, I saw kids acting like Omar, calling you by name, glorifying your ass. Makes me sick, motherfucker, how far we done fell.

  174. 174.

    hhex65

    February 7, 2011 at 2:36 am

    @wobblybits: could come in handy while they defend O’Reilly’s disgusting performance.

  175. 175.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 2:37 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    OK, that makes sense. What I’m saying is that people like me should be able to disagree without being called stupid or ignorant or that they’re being capricious.

    Well that wasn’t the discussion you and I were having. We were talking about stereotypes and racial discourses. Of course you have every right to voice your opinion about anything really but expect people to challenge you and sometimes you might educate them and sometimes they just might return the favor.

  176. 176.

    Baroness

    February 7, 2011 at 2:37 am

    @MattR:
    It’s not the exact same stereotype, which is the point.

    Watch King of Queens or Everybody Loves Raymond, then watch Tyler Perry’s House of Payne. If you can’t tell the difference between the stereotypes involved, I really don’t know what to tell you.

  177. 177.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 2:38 am

    @hhex65: I won’t be surprised when I hear/see it.

  178. 178.

    maus

    February 7, 2011 at 2:40 am

    Now that we have the internet, can we stop watching the superbowl “for the commercials”? It’s not like we’ve got a paucity of entertainment out there, we don’t need to look forward to commercials with sexism, racism/exotification, ungh.

  179. 179.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 2:41 am

    @Baroness:

    Let’s think for a minute what this would sound like if I was saying it. “This is a white person issue. Black people shouldn’t offer their opinions. Stop ‘blacksplaining’ what I should do. Defer to what I think, because white people obviously know more about this.” Yeah, not so classy when I say it. As for that link, oh yeah, because I disagree with you, I am obviously arguing in bad faith and intentionally trying to derail the conversation, thanks for telling me what I think!

    Please show where I said my opinion should take precedence or that other people’s opinions don’t matter. If I implied that at any point, I didn’t mean to.

    @Binzinerator:

    I like how you’re lecturing me on being more tolerant and then go and call an entire region of the country stupid and ignorant. Yes, I don’t agree with you, so that makes me “dense.”

  180. 180.

    Angry Black Lady

    February 7, 2011 at 2:42 am

    @Baroness: New Tag: We Are All Madeas Now.

    It is frustrating trying to have these sorts of discussion when the first posture of white folks is a defensive one. Whether you agree or disagree in good faith is exactly not the point. Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It is there — in this particular ad.

    The question becomes how are you going to receive the information that the majority of people who responded negatively to this ad are sharing? Are you going to argue for two hours about whether or not the stereotyping is there and then ultimately decide to just disagree, or are you going to listen? Maybe try to understand why you don’t see something that other people see? If you just cast us all as “paranoid,” how does that solve America’s race problems?

    Pointing out stereotypes in the media is not a game of Is It Racist — at least I don’t intend it to be. Aren’t we the thinking and evolving ones? That is why I post this stuff. I learn from people here, hopefully people here learn from me.

    This fear of the “R Word” is an interesting phenomenon, indeed.

  181. 181.

    gwangung

    February 7, 2011 at 2:43 am

    OK, that makes sense. What I’m saying is that people like me should be able to disagree without being called stupid or ignorant

    Um…what if you ARE being ignorant? Kinda stops the conversation dead.

    ETA: I mean, being ignorant is a changeable condition. But not if you refuse to admit you’re capable of it.

  182. 182.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 2:44 am

    @Angry Black Lady: and with that I bid you all boa noite.

    ETA: I saw the preview for the animated movie, “Rio”. Talk about stereotypes. Meu deus!

  183. 183.

    anthony

    February 7, 2011 at 2:44 am

    I’m finding the ‘you wanted a sandwich and now you won’t eat your shit sandwich, no pleasing you!’ line of argument about mixed races interacting in commercials pretty tedious.

    Would it have been too hard to have someone dressed up like a giant hot dog sit next to the couple? No. Who pays these chumps?

  184. 184.

    Joseph Nobles

    February 7, 2011 at 2:45 am

    @freelancer: I hope so, too. Maybe it would be a good choice for BJBC.

  185. 185.

    Angry Black Lady

    February 7, 2011 at 2:45 am

    @Baroness: That Derailing site is linked on my blog. I love it. It makes navigating Blogistan so much less irritating!

  186. 186.

    kdaug

    February 7, 2011 at 2:47 am

    This is real damn simple, folks. Reverse the races, and see if it’s still “funny”. White couple, black woman on the bench, white couple runs away.

    Still a good commercial? Still “work”? Still the impression you want associated with your product?

    If not, you’re doing it wrong. Trash the idea, and go back to the drawing board.

  187. 187.

    MattR

    February 7, 2011 at 2:48 am

    @Baroness: And from watching the thirty second commercial you could tell that it absolutely, positively had to be referencing only Tyler Perry? That is really the point.

    If you described the actions in the commercial to people without mentioning the race of anyone involved, nobody would pick up that the couple was black and the girl was white. Or how about this commercial, to quickly pick one?

    @kdaug: To me, the jokes work equally well with the races reversed (or in any combination).

  188. 188.

    Baroness

    February 7, 2011 at 2:56 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:
    Okay, first thing. You and Matt are the first people I’ve dropped that link on who probably are’t doing it intentionally, but you’re both arguing from a place of privilege using similar techniques. Harsh, but I figured, I’m at B-J. Y’all can take it.

    Answer to your hypothetical: white privilege. It’s difficult for white people to see race as impacting things because of their white privilege — white people go about their day and their race is more likely to impact them in a positive sense than a negative one, at least comparatively to people of other races. An ad full of white people, Disney movies full of white people, sitcoms full of white people (seriously, how was there only one black guy in NYC in Friends?) — they don’t come off as weird, because in America whiteness is (subconsciously, as I mentioned upthread) considered to be the default, better, and more desirable. White people stand in a position of institutionalized power in the racism ladder. Sorry about that, but that’s how it is.

    There’s no such thing as a “white people thing.” Also, there’s no such thing as a “black people thing,” with a few exceptions. ABL, a lady of color, brought up a race issue, and white people are questioning her on whether or not it’s racist. Can you see where that might be problematic?

    Just like men can’t tell women about reproductive rights, white people can’t tell people of color about what is or isn’t offensive to them.

  189. 189.

    freelancer

    February 7, 2011 at 2:58 am

    @Angry Black Lady:

    It is frustrating trying to have these sorts of discussion when the first posture of white folks is a defensive one. Whether you agree or disagree in good faith is exactly not the point. Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It is there—in this particular ad.

    I’m white folk, YOUNG white folk, and this point is not lost on me. That said, it took me a LOOOOONG damned time to get that way. The internal study of majority privilege is a fascinating thing, because even though I get it; out of the hundreds of white folk I know, including friends and family, I’d be surprised if more than 4 of them saw the transgression or even heard of the phrase “White Privilege” since then. That’s what we’re working with. I’m nothing special, personally, but I’m eons ahead of the CW regarding racial issues in my family.

    ETA: Kdaug and Baronesse have said what I meant to get across. I just made it anecdotal.

  190. 190.

    wobblybits

    February 7, 2011 at 3:05 am

    @Baroness: Speaking of privilege,Peggy McIntosh wrote this wonderful book on this very subject. what was jarring was her list of the daily effects of white privilege.

    ok now really going to bed

  191. 191.

    Yutsano

    February 7, 2011 at 3:08 am

    @freelancer: That’s a big important point. One can stop acting overtly racist and still operate from the point of privilege. The simple fact is straight white males never think about their own racial impacts, because their race and sexuality are the default “good” positions. So therefore all views are taken from that position, and the expectation is that all others do the same. That is the “privilege”, that you get to set the rules. Once you recognize that this construct does indeed exist, then you can take true steps to empathize with those outside of your power structure and then develop real honest solutions to racial discord. This ad is a step backwards on many levels, race is a big one but not the only one. Pepsico needs to suck it up, apologize, and try harder.

  192. 192.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 3:10 am

    @Angry Black Lady:

    Well, ABL, I think white people in general are testy about talking about race because whenever they try, they step on someone’s toes and get yelled at. I tried my hardest to frame my arguments in a way that wouldn’t make me sound closed-minded or blinded by privilege, but I got hit with that anyway. If as some people say, my “white privilege” is simply part and parcel of my identity as a white human being, then there’s nothing I could say to avoid it. Whether you think it’s true or not, whether you think it’s justifiable or not, you can surely admit that white people trying to talk about race will become angry if whatever they say gets chalked up to their white-person status? That’s just human nature. The weird thing about this ad is, in my attempts to defend myself, I noticed thought processes that I noticed in other, less-than-sensitive white people not getting something that was much more blatant than this. Maybe that means that white people just think a certain way about these issues. Whether you think that’s right or wrong, I think it’s something you should acknowledge.

    Being a white kid from a white, middle-class suburb is obviously going to leave me with some preconceived notions of the world. Of course, I don’t think that my preconceived notions about race are the right ones, but I think that’s the point-who’s really “right” about it? We’re all coming from different perspectives. That link that you and Baroness are laughing about is something that I actually find pretty offensive, the idea that a white person who would express these sorts of sentiments, sentiments that I feel are perfectly understandable from a white person who hasn’t lived among minorities much, they’re somehow intentional rhetorical tricks that us sneaky white people use to put minorities down. Especially the first one-if white people are inherently unable to understand what minorities feel due to white privilege, how is it a bad thing if we have to ask for guidance from those minorities? How does that follow?

    When I watched the commercial live, I really didn’t register that the people involved were of one race or the other. They’re just people. I understand how people could think it’s calling up old stereotypes (even if I’m still confused as to how-a black guy smiling at a white girl for 2 seconds somehow symbolizes rape and lust?), but I’m wondering what the logical conclusion to this argument is. That black people who are less than exemplary human beings simply shouldn’t be portrayed in media, for fear of evoking a certain stereotype. I fail to see how that will result in a more honest media or conversation about race. If anything, the average white person will just get more bitter and bitter.

    I’m not trying to offend people, and I’m not trying to be obtuse, but I don’t think it’s a bridge too far to say that I’m not “wrong” to think the way I do, just looking at it from a different perspective.

  193. 193.

    Baroness

    February 7, 2011 at 3:11 am

    @Angry Black Lady:

    If you just cast us all as “paranoid,” how does that solve America’s race problems?

    Which is the main problem now, I think. Not just for racial minorities, but for women, as well. Because steps have been made forward, there’s a refusal to acknowledge that a lot of the shit is still going on.

    Aren’t we the thinking and evolving ones? That is why I post this stuff.
    And that’s why I went !!! when you showed up on B-J, because I’ve been lurking reading ABLC for years now and you definitely bring important issues to the FP, and present them in a way that gets us rolling. See this post.

    This fear of the “R Word” is an interesting phenomenon, indeed.
    I think it’s entirely possible that people (sometimes even POCs) refuse to acknowledge racist aspects and portrayals in society because then they might have to acknowledge that race has a role at all. It’s much easier to whitewash and talk about race not mattering. (Same goes for women and misogyny — I’m looking at you, women of the GOP.)

  194. 194.

    MattR

    February 7, 2011 at 3:11 am

    @Baroness:

    An ad full of white people, Disney movies full of white people, sitcoms full of white people (seriously, how was there only one black guy in NYC in Friends?)

    Do you know why this happens? As I said above, the sad, ironic reality is that it is safer to use an all white cast becasue then you don’t have to worry about offending any sensibilities with which cast members are non-white and how they relate with the white cast members. Most sitcoms are just not intersted in dealing with race relations so they don’t want to deal with the hassle. Therefore, all white.

    Just like men can’t tell women about reproductive rights, white people can’t tell people of color about what is or isn’t offensive to them. Just like men can’t tell women about reproductive rights, white people can’t tell people of color about what is or isn’t offensive to them.

    I will agree. But men can point out that Obamacare is not an attack on women’s reproductive rights. Or white people can point out that something you consider to be a black stereotype is considered a stereotype in other cultures as well. (And frankly I am not getting into a discussion about white privilege because it is irrelevant to this particular point.)

  195. 195.

    Common Sense

    February 7, 2011 at 3:14 am

    MST3K called it

  196. 196.

    freelancer

    February 7, 2011 at 3:16 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    It’s not about being “testy”, it’s about having your consciousness raised. Forgive the length of this post, but wobblybits posted Peggy MacIntosh’s list of 50 aspects of Privilege that Whites benefit from, and thus don’t take for granted, it’s fucking daunting:

    1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

    2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.

    3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.

    4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.

    5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

    6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.

    7. When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.

    8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.

    9. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.

    10. I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race.

    11. I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another person’s voice in a group in which s/he is the only member of his/her race.

    12. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser’s shop and find someone who can cut my hair.

    13. Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.

    14. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.

    15. I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.

    16. I can be pretty sure that my children’s teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others’ attitudes toward their race.

    17. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color.

    18. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race.

    19. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.

    20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

    21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.

    22. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world’s majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.

    23. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.

    24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the “person in charge”, I will be facing a person of my race.

    25. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out because of my race.

    26. I can easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children’s magazines featuring people of my race.

    27. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance or feared.

    28. I can be pretty sure that an argument with a colleague of another race is more likely to jeopardize her/his chances for advancement than to jeopardize mine.

    29. I can be pretty sure that if I argue for the promotion of a person of another race, or a program centering on race, this is not likely to cost me heavily within my present setting, even if my colleagues disagree with me.

    30. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn’t a racial issue at hand, my race will lend me more credibility for either position than a person of color will have.

    31. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and minority activist programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any case, I can find ways to be more or less protected from negative consequences of any of these choices.

    32. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races.

    33. I am not made acutely aware that my shape, bearing or body odor will be taken as a reflection on my race.

    34. I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.

    35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.

    36. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it had racial overtones.

    37. I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be willing to talk with me and advise me about my next steps, professionally.

    38. I can think over many options, social, political, imaginative or professional, without asking whether a person of my race would be accepted or allowed to do what I want to do.

    39. I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race.

    40. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.

    41. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.

    42. I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to my race.

    43. If I have low credibility as a leader I can be sure that my race is not the problem.

    44. I can easily find academic courses and institutions which give attention only to people of my race.

    45. I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race.

    46. I can chose blemish cover or bandages in “flesh” color and have them more or less match my skin.

    47. I can travel alone or with my spouse without expecting embarrassment or hostility in those who deal with us.

    48. I have no difficulty finding neighborhoods where people approve of our household.

    49. My children are given texts and classes which implicitly support our kind of family unit and do not turn them against my choice of domestic partnership.

    50. I will feel welcomed and “normal” in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social.

  197. 197.

    magurakurin

    February 7, 2011 at 3:17 am

    It’s a stupid fucking commercial for a stupid fucking product. Except for those few, rare individuals who actually like the taste of diet soda, if you are drinking diet soda you are missing the plot. Diet soda is probably the most useless creation humankind has ever devised. I mean, seriously, drink fucking water if you are worried about the calories. Diet soda taste like shit and it is nothing but a toxic mixture of chemical sugar substitutes. Soda may not be good for you, but at least Coke and Pepsi, the real sugary kind, more or less tastes good.

    So, in all a dumb ass, borderline full on racist commercial seems fitting for shit product like diet Pepsi.

  198. 198.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 3:18 am

    Re: The McIntosh link, she describes how men and white people she works with understand that minorities may be underpriviliged is one way or another, but that they’re reluctant to acknowledge their own privilege, or make attempts to scale it back. Well, why would they? The goal should be that no one has to worry about what their race makes people think of them, not that everyone equally should. With more zero-sum stuff like hiring and scholarships, it’s a different story, of course.

  199. 199.

    Yutsano

    February 7, 2011 at 3:24 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    I’m not trying to offend people, and I’m not trying to be obtuse, but I don’t think it’s a bridge too far to say that I’m not “wrong” to think the way I do, just looking at it from a different perspective.

    I’m gonna grab this statement and run with it, cause I actually see some hope here. I’ll break down what I mean:

    I’m not trying to offend people,

    This is a positive, and I hope no one is ascribing deliberate malice to you.

    and I’m not trying to be obtuse,

    Seeing you write this, I believe you. I think you’re not conscious of why the statements you made are obtuse, but they do seem to be communicating past rather than with, and that’s going both directions.

    but I don’t think it’s a bridge too far to say that I’m not “wrong” to think the way I do

    FWIW it’s not a matter of “right” or “wrong”, just an acknowledgment of the next point I’ll get to:

    just looking at it from a different perspective.

    The perspective you describe is the power structure perspective in this country. It is how you have been trained to see the world, and why you adopt the attitudes you have daily. In your world, very few people will judge you for the color of your skin, consider you less because of that, and regard you as a “normal”. The trap in that kind of thinking from that perspective is that you think this is how the rest of the world views what you are seeing. Not everyone has shared your cultural or racial understandings or upbringing, so while you are trying to be blind to such things (which is not bad at all) expecting others to also adopt your view because it is the norm is where your privilege comes into play. It’s tough to crack, it takes work, and sometimes a really uncomfortable examination of yourself. But you at least admit you have a perspective, not THE perspective. That’s a start.

    Sorry if I’m offending you, I’m just trying to get you to where I think you want to be.

  200. 200.

    freelancer

    February 7, 2011 at 3:25 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    hey’re reluctant to acknowledge their own privilege, or make attempts to scale it back. Well, why would they? The goal should be that no one has to worry about what their race makes people think of them, not that everyone equally should. With more zero-sum stuff like hiring and scholarships, it’s a different story, of course.

    Boy did you get that backwards. It’s not to scale back one group’s benefit, but the point is to elevate every group to have equal opportunity.

  201. 201.

    Jason

    February 7, 2011 at 3:26 am

    Ugh…the white girl part didn’t help. But I think the worst was when she knocked the white girl out…and BOTH of them ran for the hills.

  202. 202.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 3:26 am

    @freelancer:

    Yeah, that’s what I said should happen. I don’t know, maybe I misread her.

  203. 203.

    MattR

    February 7, 2011 at 3:31 am

    @freelancer: @Spaghetti Lee: Let’s see if I can bridge the gap using one of the 50 principles from above as an example

    21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.

    What Spaghetti Lee was trying to say (I think) was that white people should not be ashamed that this is true for them. Instead they should be ashamed that it is not true for others and we should be keeping the focus on correcting that problem.

  204. 204.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 3:35 am

    @Yutsano:

    you think this is how the rest of the world views what you are seeing.

    Well, I don’t think that. I don’t think that my perspective is more right or more normal than that or people who aren’t like me. I don’t think I have “the” perspective on any of this. (ETA: Of course given that we’re talking about subconscious stuff here, who knows what I “really” think.) I have “a” perspective, and the reason I’m getting so mad is that I think people are looking at it as a lesser perspective, because “white privilege” clouds my vision, but other perspectival biases that affect non-whites don’t affect them.

    expecting others to also adopt your view because it is the norm is where your privilege comes into play.

    Well, I don’t really expect anyone to adopt it. I’d like people to, at least, see it as something not held for malicious reasons, and something that’s as understandable given my upbringing as their perspectives are for theirs.

    and sometimes a really uncomfortable examination of yourself.

    That’s the big one. Even just dipping my toes into it hear I’m already getting cognitive red flags in my brain, telling me to just stay the fuck away from thinking about it too hard. If a significant part of recognizing and rooting out white privilege is having white people admit that a great amount of their culture and values and very sense of self is based on the unconscious, systemic discrimination against others, then it will probably never go away. No one wants to think about that stuff, black or white or whatever.

  205. 205.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 3:36 am

    @MattR:

    Yeah, that’s about right. You can say what I say better than I say it.

  206. 206.

    Angry Black Lady

    February 7, 2011 at 3:38 am

    @Spaghetti Lee: i know you’re not trying to offend anyone or be obtuse. i definitely appreciate the fact that you’re still sharing and listening. i’m listening and learning too. that’s the point, really! :)

  207. 207.

    freelancer

    February 7, 2011 at 3:39 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    It could be, and I don’t want to demonize you either because, like Yuts, I think you’re arguing in good faith. But the overriding fact that keeps bugging me, even if I feel quite uncomfortable about the ad, I know a lot of people that wouldn’t have been. That said, I know that there are a lot of intelligent people for whom this ad is a slap in the face. If Black Ladies/Men get Angry over this stupid and juvenile soda ad, I don’t have the veto power, as a white person to tell them that their anger is misplaced, any more than a Christian can tell me not to be irked over every public/governmental/corporate invocation of the Biblical God. They don’t have veto power over my objections. And any secularist that sides with them can go fuck themselves.

    Even then, there’s only so far I can work with this metaphor, because, as a nonbeliever, I am Not identifiable by physical characteristics, and thus can’t be threatened except through my own admission of infidelity. I survive open hostility to who I am through pure anonymity. Racial constructs, and those that suffer from its politics don’t even have that benefit.

  208. 208.

    Angry Black Lady

    February 7, 2011 at 3:41 am

    @MattR: it’s not a matter of shame. you are who you are and you grew up how you grew up. it’s just a matter of looking outside one’s privilege to see how it may affect one’s view of the world.

    almost everyone has some sort of privilege that colors the way they view the world. the point is to try to understand one another. i certainly wouldn’t expect you or anyone to feel shame. it’s about knowledge and awareness, i think.

  209. 209.

    MattR

    February 7, 2011 at 3:45 am

    @Angry Black Lady:I was just trying to explain what Spaghetti Lee said earlier (with a focus on the bolded part which is what freelancer excerpted and replied to):

    Re: The McIntosh link, she describes how men and white people she works with understand that minorities may be underpriviliged is one way or another, but that they’re reluctant to acknowledge their own privilege, or make attempts to scale it back. Well, why would they? The goal should be that no one has to worry about what their race makes people think of them, not that everyone equally should.

    EDIT: I think we both agree about the acknowledging what the privilege gives us. (And #46 was probably the only one of the 50 that I had never thought of).

  210. 210.

    Yutsano

    February 7, 2011 at 3:45 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    If a significant part of recognizing and rooting out white privilege is having white people admit that a great amount of their culture and values and very sense of self is based on the unconscious, systemic discrimination against others, then it will probably never go away.

    It was only 150 years ago that ownership of those with dark skin was finally illegalized. It was only forty years ago that their right to participate in the political process was enshrined into law. Those attitudes and ideas that made those institutions possible still exist in our society. I’m with ABL: you’re listening, and you’re trying to understand, and trust me as someone with pale skin I’ve been where you are. And I was actually rather resentful, because I saw myself as open-minded and non-racist. Privilege really is a whole other pervasive and pernicious evil all on its own, and yeah it takes a lot of shit work to wash it out of your own system. I really do honestly feel like you’re starting to get there, most folks when challenged like this just stop listening. You’re still here. And this doesn’t change overnight. There is no real epiphany moment. But you’re starting to figure out there is another perspective at the very least. I find that encouraging.

    @freelancer:

    If Black Ladies/Men get Angry over this stupid and juvenile soda ad, I don’t have the veto power, as a white person to tell them that their anger is misplaced, any more than a Christian can tell me not to be irked over every public/governmental/corporate invocation of the Biblical God.

    Damn you young’un for saying it so much fucking better than I could. :)

  211. 211.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 3:46 am

    @freelancer:

    Well, I’m not saying I have moral “veto power”, or that I’m more in the right than them. I’m not trying to say “There’s nothing offensive about this, you’re a moron for thinking so”. What I’m saying is “I feel there’s a legitimate perspective, no more or less so than yours, from which one could see this as inoffensive.” Anyone “telling” someone else to not be offended is pretty pointless anyway, unless they have some actual power over that person, because people are going to be offended if they feel like it, and it is offensive to tell other people what to think. What I think “in-group” members are in the right saying is that the ad doesn’t offend them personally, and they’re not automatically morally in the wrong just for feeling that way.

  212. 212.

    freelancer

    February 7, 2011 at 3:47 am

    @MattR:

    Thank you. I think we’re all a bit wiser. I feel I get what you and Spaghetti Lee are saying.

  213. 213.

    Spaghetti Lee

    February 7, 2011 at 3:48 am

    @Yutsano:

    Well I better get a goddamn epiphany out of this, I’m up way past my bed time. About 100 posts back or so, I did consider just walking out in anger, but I’m glad I didn’t.

  214. 214.

    Yutsano

    February 7, 2011 at 3:52 am

    @Spaghetti Lee: I’m glad you didn’t either, and whatever the fuck else comes out of tonight, I’ll give you credit until the ends of the earth for that.

    EDIT: And knowing ABL, I bet she does as well.

  215. 215.

    Angry Black Lady

    February 7, 2011 at 4:00 am

    @Yutsano: hell yeah! peace pipe anyone?

  216. 216.

    Angry Black Lady

    February 7, 2011 at 4:01 am

    @MattR: for sure. and i apologize for my watermelon snark. it was unwarranted.

    i think i’ll have another pear cider.

  217. 217.

    freelancer

    February 7, 2011 at 4:03 am

    @Angry Black Lady:

    No time for drugs, I’m going to bed.

  218. 218.

    Angry Black Lady

    February 7, 2011 at 4:03 am

    @Yutsano: i had a pretty big epiphany after realizing that despite my racial “underprivilege” (for lack of a better term) i had scads of financial privilege as compared to some of my white friends.

    we all have shit to work through and figure out.

  219. 219.

    Yutsano

    February 7, 2011 at 4:14 am

    @Angry Black Lady:

    we all have shit to work through and figure out.

    Yup. Pretty much. But at least seeing it’s there means you can take the next step of working on it.

    And I’m gonna rack out here too. Those tax cheats don’t chase themselves you know. :)

  220. 220.

    HeartlandLiberal

    February 7, 2011 at 4:59 am

    As of this morning, the Wikipedia entry for Pepsi Mas already has this sparkling addition. I am sure the executive at Pepsico are thrilled at the reviews the ads are getting.

    Racism

    In the 2011 Super Bowl, Pepsi ran a commercial featuring an African-American couple. The female dominates the man’s diet. When the man smiles at a blonde jogger, the woman becomes enraged and throws a can, injuring the jogger. The couple then run away, rather than assist the injured jogger. The advertisement was labelled racist, sexist, and indifferent to human suffering.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi_Max

  221. 221.

    mnpundit

    February 7, 2011 at 6:09 am

    Actually my wife related to the woman in this commercial quite a bit in the struggle to keep me from eating crappy processed food which I love. I depend on her to help me resist the urges and eat healthy. It is very hard and sometimes she needs to be a “raging bitch” in her own words.

    My wife is a lily white red-head of Danish ancestry. So if these are black woman stereotypes they apply in my life to a white woman.

  222. 222.

    Lysana

    February 7, 2011 at 6:30 am

    So, why didn’t anyone point out that the clear difference in the black couple dynamic vs the white couple dynamic that was invoked as an alleged equivalent is that black Tyler Perry wives will slap their husbands around while white sitcom wives don’t?

    The spousal abuse in this ad pissed me off almost as much as the stereotyping, to be frank.

  223. 223.

    asiangrrlMN

    February 7, 2011 at 6:46 am

    @Spaghetti Lee: But you are being ignorant. You have several people explain to you just why the goddamn commercial is racist, but because you personally don’t see it, it isn’t. That is the very definition of ignorant–refusing to accept arguments that counter your own, even when they are made very well. This ad was racist. It doesn’t need a hood and a burning cross to touch on age-old stereotypes. And, the fact that of all the ways they could have chosen to depict a black couple, this is the way they did it is telling.

    And, as for the harpy wife–whether that is particular to the blacks or not, it is a strident image invoked–especially of black women. And, at the very least it’s ragingly sexist. It immediately set my teeth on edge.

    White girl at the end? Yeah. Had me rolling my eyes. Always the white girl–and usually the blonde girl.

    The whole commercial was foul. I am a Pepsi gal, but not after seeing this particular commercial. Marketing only works in reverse for me. Then again, I found most of the commercials to be mean-spirited and nasty in general.

    @gwangung: And, whot you said.

  224. 224.

    aimai

    February 7, 2011 at 6:47 am

    @wobblybits:

    This ad really does sound horrendous.

    On the other issue I think that (some) viewers are having the problem that white people generally have in discussions of racism and men generally have in discussions of sexism and upper class people have in discussions of classism–its very hard to see it ifyou are swimming in it. And some people have a hard time distinguishing the situation from the person or, to put it another way, not personalizing it to *themselves.* Spaghetti Lee’s point way upthread “What was Pepsi supposed to do” implies that Pepsi and its advertising team are being hurt by this criticism, that they are basically “good people” who made an inevitable mistake by making adds in some kind of cultural minefield.

    But of course we aren’t living in a cultural minefield, we are making one every day with adds like this. Pepsi wants to appeal to the basest masculine instincts (nagging wife/boyish men/hypersexed/stupid actions) because it thinks those pander to its base buyer and it also wanted to use some visual diversity to avoid criticism that it only uses white actors. But when you pour paint into milk you don’t get something drinkeable. Race sterotypes in this country are *also* gender sterotypes, or rely on gendered and misogynistic imagery to make sense. There may be a protected class of white people who don’t have to see the imagery clearly anymore–just like there’s a class of elites who can see an add parodying and humiliating homeless people and say “well, some homeless people are probably like that, its no biggie….” but the rest of us see very clearly what is being signaled–even if it is in some sense accidental or involuntary. It will only stop being accidental when enough contrary images are in free play that the selection of images and their interpretation is entirely random.

    aimai

    aimai

  225. 225.

    Southern Beale

    February 7, 2011 at 7:03 am

    There’s an ad featuring a black couple for some product, don’t even know what, where the man changes everything — his clunker car into a sports car, etc. And of course his heavyset wife for a young hottie … but the young version looks white to me. She’s definitely lighter skinned.

    I found that very odd.

  226. 226.

    aimai

    February 7, 2011 at 7:10 am

    @MattR:

    Interesting point, MattR, but in reality it cuts the other way. What we need, as a society, is to cast multiple non white actors in as many roles written for a “white” cast as possible. This will make the situation much easier for writers and viewers because it will take the curse off the lone black actor having to bear the entire burden of significance. Look at a show like Bones, for instance? If you look at the supporting roles in the show the people casting cast black people in what looks like forty percent of those roles. If there’s a married couple who appear in an incidental role (parent of the victim, spouse of a victim) they are quite likely to be mixed race. The cops, firefighters, rangers and other introductory characters look like they are almost half the time non white–asian or black.

    It got to be so frequent that I started being able to predict that most couples would be interracial and that that fact would not alter the writing in any way. By the time you are halfway through the season your spider senses aren’t tingling (excpet in the hideously written rapper episode) whenever you see a white man and a black woman or a black woman and a white man. You know that they don’t represent race relations they simply are two people.

    But you have to commit to writing and casting in a very conscious way to pull it off.

    aimai

  227. 227.

    Benjamin Cisco

    February 7, 2011 at 7:17 am

    Well, I thought it was crappy. OTOH, if Pepsico’s intent was to have people talking about their ad…

  228. 228.

    Mike Furlan

    February 7, 2011 at 7:22 am

    @TooManyJens:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till

  229. 229.

    Marlowe

    February 7, 2011 at 7:30 am

    Angry Black Lady,

    It should be “whoever squeezed out this turd”, not whomever.

  230. 230.

    Jersee

    February 7, 2011 at 7:51 am

    The offensive Pepsi ad was already pulled off Yahoo’s list of Superbowl commercials. So all white woman are whores looking for black men..eh? All black woman are agressive hotheads… eh? All black men prefer white woman over their black mates… eh? What were they thinking when this was produced? No one knew this was wrong? Looks like a bunch of gays and ugly white woman wrote and produced this garbage!

  231. 231.

    Platonicspoof

    February 7, 2011 at 8:02 am

    @wobblybits:
    Thanks for the excellent link; abstractions like white (and other) privilege really need to be spelled out in a concrete way to convince people that it’s about advantages as well as flagrant injustice.

  232. 232.

    johnnymags

    February 7, 2011 at 8:03 am

    I’m a caucasoid and I was slightly amused at the soap bit- turned off by the obnoxiousness of the harpy black female stereotype as a whole and was wtf at the cute white girl who flirts with the guy getting punished at the end with a sodacan( a sexual subtext- she gets it in the can?). Now you could take it as a reference to Jungle Fever/ Mandingo lust, or not. But the pelting of the girl in the head was over the top. It didn’t diffuse the race issue for me, it just made a complete left turn. In any sense this ad is a complete turn off- there’s no “button” for this sketch.

  233. 233.

    johnnymags

    February 7, 2011 at 8:12 am

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    You’d make a great ad man, don’t think of anything just copy what other agencies are doing, lol. No seriously- they could have done a thousand other different things, that’s why they are called “Creatives”. They usually pitch four or five ideas at minimum, how Pepsi signed off on this is beyond me.

  234. 234.

    gene108

    February 7, 2011 at 8:19 am

    I liked the ad. You have a wife trying to get her man to eat right, and I know several men who have wives trying to do this and all of a sudden he’s drinking something and his health conscious wife approves.

    Message: Pepsi Max = healthy drink for the health conscious.

    I thought the ending was funny. I didn’t expect it. I thought after she saw him drinking Pepsi Max and approved the commercial would just end. The bit with the girl getting beaned was a slapstick twist, I didn’t expect.

    Anyway, that’s just me. I didn’t get the racial overtones of bitchy black woman, because like I said, I know wives who do the same thing with trying to get their man to eat right. I also didn’t get the undertone of the black man with animalistic lust trying to get with white women, because the girl who sat down on the bench is HOT. You have to be gay not to notice her.

  235. 235.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    February 7, 2011 at 8:44 am

    The ending of that commercial did fall flat for me, and part of the reason was that I did think it was peculiar to have a blond white girl in that situation.

    Um, >= 50% of the population is white. Where are you going to go to sit in a park, where the couple is obviously middle class, and not have white people sit down.

    The only stereotype I thought was being played was the wife lusting after other women. (BTW, how that we are talking about it, there is an ad at the bottom of the page for interracial couples dating.) I happen to like women of all skin color – though I might have to make orange an exception – and so I thought it was funny.

  236. 236.

    DBrown

    February 7, 2011 at 8:46 am

    I’m white, and I always do feel that our culture does rather poorly towards black’s but that ad was funny and I do NOT feel that having a white woman hit on the black guy in any way supports the black/white woman stero-type; the black guy did nothing wrong! and the wife’s reaction was funny (mean towards her husband but after the white woman was hit by the can the actions of the couple were funny). The aid was fine and was not a race issue – if it was all white, or all black no one would care so that means the issue is with us, not the ad. Sorry, but you can mix races in commercials and not be guilty of race baiting. My take …

  237. 237.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 7, 2011 at 8:49 am

    I will say that I did not see a racist subtext (conscious or un) when I watched that ad during the game. Now that it has been mentioned, I can definitely see it. I think this was an inadvertent blunder, but that, I am sure, does not make it less offensive. What is sad is that the ad agency and Pepsi probably thought they were doing a good thing by casting an AA couple.

  238. 238.

    gelfling545

    February 7, 2011 at 9:11 am

    @MattR: Or they could have made an ad that did not rely on stupid stereotypes whether gender based or racial but I guess it was beyond them.

  239. 239.

    Lisa

    February 7, 2011 at 9:13 am

    No I disagree Angry Black Lady. I think this was just plain funny. And the addition of a white person in it was a wink at all of those Tyler Perry movies where the white bitch gets her wig ripped off/slapped senseless for stealing our fine black men/interfering in a fine black relationship.

    But I still like Coke better.

  240. 240.

    Keith G

    February 7, 2011 at 9:25 am

    @asiangrrlMN:

    But you are being ignorant.

    You do not agree with what this person has said, so you backnand her/him by calling him/her (totally) uneducated?

    Not helpful.

  241. 241.

    Rathskeller

    February 7, 2011 at 9:26 am

    @Arclite: Actually, not running away could have turned it around into standard slapstick, without the racist overtones. They’d be pulling a stranger into their psycho marriage.

    WIFE: (to fallen woman) I’m so sorry! I’ve tried to train him not to duck. It’s his fault!

    WOMAN ON GROUND: [ looks disbelievingly at husband ]

    HUSBAND: (resigned tone) Yes, I’m whipped.

  242. 242.

    trout

    February 7, 2011 at 9:27 am

    @Violet: close your eyes to the color of their skin and its funny…. as good as the cat fight over great taste/less filling debate years ago.

  243. 243.

    Rathskeller

    February 7, 2011 at 9:31 am

    @Keith G: Spaghetti Lee has posted 30 times in this thread thus far, showing a consistent and stubborn refusal to incorporate what other people are saying, even when people of color are specifically complaining about racism that he himself has never experienced, nor apparently, even thought about. Calling him ignorant at this point — with an accompanying, polite explanation — is pretty mild.

  244. 244.

    Ash Can

    February 7, 2011 at 9:47 am

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): Out of all the shades and combinations of skin and hair colors, it was blond and white chosen for that particular role. Yes, it could have happened in real life, but on sheer mathematics, chances are it wouldn’t, not in that exact combination. Along with the dumb action it accompanied, it ended what for me was an otherwise funny commercial (because I laugh at some kinds of slapstick) on an off note. The blond white girl tripped my racism sensor, but only in a vague sort of way; being white myself I couldn’t put my finger on why she did. That’s where someone like ABL comes in — she can explain in precise detail why that particular situation is so offensive. That’s one of the reasons I like ABL’s posts so much. Let’s face it, how else is someone like me going to learn this stuff, except from actual people of color?

  245. 245.

    Barb (formerly Gex)

    February 7, 2011 at 9:57 am

    Basically, if the dogwhistles aren’t about you, you are free to pretend that they don’t exist. I.E. it is always straight white Christian men who put up the most resistance to the idea of even trying to avoid presenting old stereotypes in order not to affirm them.

  246. 246.

    Dr. Squid

    February 7, 2011 at 10:07 am

    All I remember is that ad came right after the Doritos finger-sucking ad and being too grossed out from that to have a negative immediate reaction to that crappy PepsiMax ad.

  247. 247.

    carpeicthus

    February 7, 2011 at 10:11 am

    I have to admit, I had an opposite reaction. This commercial was blah and normal male/female stereotypes until the ending, when it was brilliant dark comedy. A man and wife come together over apparent accidental manslaughter? Gutsy way to sell soda.

  248. 248.

    Tim

    February 7, 2011 at 10:15 am

    I’m sick of seeing women and girls portrayed doing domestic violence and everybody laughing. Imagine a commercial with a guy hitting a woman, etc.

  249. 249.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 7, 2011 at 11:00 am

    @Barb (formerly Gex): Actually, I think that is a bit harsh. If the dogwhistle isn’t about you, you may not hear it. Not hearing it is different than pretending it doesn’t exist.

  250. 250.

    Flugelhorn

    February 7, 2011 at 11:04 am

    @Spaghetti Lee: Don’t even bother. Balloon-juice always seems to hear a dog whistle in something.

  251. 251.

    machine

    February 7, 2011 at 11:38 am

    I mean, would it have been so hard to pick a girl of any other race?

    How many black women do you see out jogging?

    I’d have thought that the more salient objection would be that it uses domestic violence as a comedic element.

  252. 252.

    eire

    February 7, 2011 at 11:52 am

    I actually went to school with the guy who wrote this.

    I was kind of shocked when I first saw it, because it’s so atypical of his previous work, and in general of him as a person. Frankly, I think it was just a bizarre reaction to what happened to him last year – he entered the Doritos contest, did really well (with something that was actually funny), and then had the ad execs tell him that the ad seemed “too liberal” and “pro-gay.”

    I’m not sure why he went so far in this direction, though; he’s not a frat boy/stereotypical racist, but he has lived a fairly sheltered life and is a bit reclusive.

    Well, maybe from now on he’ll write only things that are the opposite of this, given that he had a similar reaction to the feedback last year.

  253. 253.

    mofo

    February 7, 2011 at 11:58 am

    Has anyone mentioned that the White Girl was NOT hot?

    Not that this is germane to the larger points being made, etc., but she lacked the hotness factor.

  254. 254.

    eire

    February 7, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    Oh, and when another friend and I mentioned the potential racist interpretation to him, he literally said “wait…what?” He was working with a couple hundred dollars and just cast a few actors he knew. Oops.

  255. 255.

    JRon

    February 7, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    This was an interesting thread to read. It really points up how much American culture changes over generations and in different places, as there’s so clearly an argument between age groups.

    It reminds me of when my white next-door neighbor in Atlanta went off to college and dropped by to tell us about her first semester. She was fairly traumatized by the negative reaction of some new friends when she pointed out a fine-looking young black man. She and her friends in high school dated all races and thought nothing of it.

    My wife and I, 20 years older, were surprised that she would be surprised. We were also encouraged by it– our kids will attend the same public schools in the same neighborhood and we want them to be more like her than the “friends” she described.

    Many young people today, and perhaps this includes Spaghetti Lee, simply don’t see race in the same terms as someone my age. While it’s helpful to learn how others see it, sometimes this starting point may not be a bad thing.

    That said, I don’t think the commercial sounds so hot whether the races are reversed or not. That Chrysler 200 commercial was awesome though.

  256. 256.

    JRon

    February 7, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    Just want to add how much the “definitely south or Midwest” comments took me back, reminding me so much of speaking to young woman in a bar years ago, who picked up my accent and said, ” you’re from the South? Oh I hate Southerners, they’re so prejudiced.”

    I was too stunned by the irony to think of anything to say.

  257. 257.

    Ecks

    February 7, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    @Barb (formerly Gex): But if you have an interracial couple and then he eyeballs a black woman, you get a whole different powder keg of racist hidden meanings. Is this a commentary that interracial couples don’t work, because the stereotypically self-improving white woman wants to “fix” the black man, and he wants to escape to someone “like him” who would understand his ways? And you couldn’t have the husband editing his wife’s eating, because that would be an attempt by a man to control a woman’s diet and body size, to make her into something he will be attracted to. And if you make the ogled at woman Asian, then you’re referencing the stereotype of Asian women as mysterious and sexually dexterous (though this stereotype is somewhat antiquated now I think).

    Basically our society is so fucked up that pretty much any permutation of cross-racial sexual attraction has SOME ugly stereotype that it could be seen as referencing, and if you’re just making a 30 second spot for soda, you don’t have a whole lot of room to build nuance that would help work around those… So I think Pepsi is basically boned on this concept.

    But for those woh say it’s “lazy and stupid”… well sure, but it’s an add selling SODA… There aren’t that many deep or insightful things you can say about artificial flavoring and carbon dioxide suspended in water and served in a can. Slice-of-life low-brow slapstick is a pretty legit way of moving soda in general… so what do you do? Perhaps the only sensible response is to avoid all mixed-race casting that involves romantic-attraction scenarios? That seems kind of lame too. Dunno.

  258. 258.

    Jamey: Bike Commuter of the Gods

    February 7, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    Jeez, I dunno. I was offended by the gratuitous violence (esp. against women), but the post-racial me wondered whether making the third party a black woman would be tantamount to suggesting that one stay with their own.

    I didn’t read the whole Mandingo myth into this…until ABL brought it up. I can see how some would view the ad through that prism, but it definitely wasn’t the first thing that popped into my mind–nor was it the first thing that I found objectionable.

    Hated most of the ads–thought the Lipton Tea/Eminem one was mad clever, though. Lotsa sight-gags, and, thus, made to be viewed and re-viewed on TiVo. Way to cut the Gordian knot, Mr or Ms Ad-Genius Person!

  259. 259.

    ruemara

    February 7, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    I think you hit the problem on the head there. You’re oblivious. It’s fine that you are, but please, do step aside and let the people who have to live in the part of american society that you’re oblivious to have their feelings.

    ABL, this should never, ever have made it past the marketing team. I don’t care how user generated the content was. And frankly, as a black woman, I am getting highly sick of being portrayed as some sort of psychotic, tightly wound bitch by even black directors and content creators. Fuck all of them with a rusty pitchfork. The issues with this add are both intraracial and interracial.

  260. 260.

    Jamey: Bike Commuter of the Gods

    February 7, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    @suzanne: OR cast it with hand-puppets.

  261. 261.

    Jamey: Bike Commuter of the Gods

    February 7, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    @ruemara:

    I am getting highly sick of being portrayed as some sort of psychotic, tightly wound bitch by even black directors and content creators. Fuck all of them with a rusty pitchfork.

    Ma’am: You forgot to close the irony tag in your HTML coding.

  262. 262.

    Stefan

    February 7, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    All they have to do is rearrange the people in a non-stereotypical way. 1) ads don’t like to show interracial couples it seems 2) the black guy with a white woman but eyeballing a black woman totally turns the stereotype on end. You can still get all the main points of the ad while avoiding the racism. But only if you make an effort.

    So in this version of the ad, the white woman assaults the black girl who her husband is looking at, and then the white woman and her black husband hold hands and run away, leaving the black girl unconscious on the ground.

    Nope, no one would get upset about any racist implications in that….

  263. 263.

    Angry Black Lady

    February 7, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    @Marlowe: thank you.

  264. 264.

    The Other Jerome

    February 7, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    Crazy-town how THIS thread is the one that gets me to de-lurk.

    Anyway, I don’t know, i didn’t have an issue with the ad. I’m a black guy who watched the game with a bunch of other black guys. No one said a word about it.

    I have to note: I took an acting class with the male lead. He was pretty excited with the prospect of it airing (Man, it’s a small world)

  265. 265.

    Aaron Baker

    February 7, 2011 at 4:20 pm

    (For whatever it may be worth, I’m a white man married to a black woman):

    Rather than find it offensive, I liked the cross-racial part of this ad. You can count the ads that show interracial attraction on the fingers of one hand–and still have fingers to spare. Rather than suggesting the old, bad stereotype of overpowering black male lust for (of course unwilling) white women, you see here a black man and white woman who have an equivalent, pleasant reaction to each other. I think that’s fine, not offensive.

    The treatment of the black woman as a ball-busting harpy is more problematic–though as I think others have pointed out, the trope of women dominating their husbands or boyfriends is hardly confined to fictions about black women. If black harridans are a staple of popular entertainments these days, then I can understand seeing this treatment as lazy and offensive–though shoving her man’s face into his meal was so entertainingly over the top for me that I laughed out loud when I saw it.

  266. 266.

    Stefan

    February 7, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    Black harpy wife, Black harpy wife, can’t-do-anything-right black husband. It’s Tyler Perry’s bread and butter. (And I’m only half-joking.) I’m sure that white couples have similar dynamics but THESE stereotypes in particular are black stereotypes.

    Oh, c’mon. Harpy wife, can’t-do-anything-right husband anen’t black stereotypes, they’re human stereotypes. This comes up in all cultures throughout human history — you can see it in ancient Greek dramas, Irish folk tales, Shakespeare, and Andy Capp, Dagwood and Blondie, and Hagar the Horrible cartoons.

  267. 267.

    Stefan

    February 7, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    Just remembered “Everybody Loves Raymond”. The entire point of that show depended on the harpy wife, can’t-do-anything-right husband trope, and I may have missed it but I don’t think that Ray Barone and Patricia Heaton were African-American.

  268. 268.

    Tarzan Jane

    February 7, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    Horrible, portraying another Black Female stereo type as Angry, Mean, Controlling, Vicious, Masculine, she’s emasculating the passive weak minded black male. It was VERY MUCH ABOUT race, and terrible promoting of vicious, needless violence against white women. If it was not about race, a black actress would have been used. Pepsi is displaying typical hate whitey , thinking more Black women will buy Pepsi because they show a white pretty women being harmed and injured, Racial violence sells.. This is NOT funny. Imagine if Two white actors were used and the White women attempts violence and near murder against a Black model. The Pimps of race would be screaming for apologies and exhort money payouts or boycott Pepsi. I hate this commercial and will NOT buy Pepsi or any products. Pepsi is showing it’s okay to physically hurt White women knowing the Whites are too cowardly to speak up. . The White women model was carefully chosen rather than a black more appropriate actress. Pepsi can go to h*LL with unhealthy junk food products.

  269. 269.

    Vince CA

    February 7, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    You could have saved yourself from the outrage by not watching the Stupor Bowl. I give Pepsi two points for getting everyone’s goat. That kind of advertisement usually can’t be bought. (And I drink neither Pepsi nor Coke, unless it’s MexiCoke, and I have a couple of those every month).

  270. 270.

    Brassknuckle Diplomacy

    February 7, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    I’m a white dude who doesn’t spend all that much time thinking about race, but even I can see how this ad would annoy the hell out of some black people.

    I’m far from a student of race relations, but I’m not so deliberately obtuse as to not recognize the hoary tropes presented here. I don’t know how you can grow up anywhere in North America and not see the “black women are shrill ballbusters/black men dream of a nice submissive white girl” stereotypes at play in this ad.

    It’s not about whether the ad is somehow “objectively” racist and how white people are wrong for not seeing that, it’s about the fact that a lot of people see this ad and think “Here we go again…”. They don’t need to be told that because some guy who wants to think of himself as colour-blind doesn’t see the racist elements at work here, those elements must only exist for sensitive people.

    That said, I did laugh at the woman getting beaned with the soda can, I also laughed when Fabio got his nose broken by a bird on that roller coaster years back. People getting hit in the face with flying objects is something I just laugh very hard at, not sure what that says about me.

  271. 271.

    FunkDubious

    February 8, 2011 at 4:45 pm

    As reported on Fox News: “Local woman narrowly escapes attempted rape by angry black mob”

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • TBone on Wednesday Morning Open Thread: The GOP Insists There Will Be Blood Impeachment (Apr 17, 2024 @ 10:55am)
  • Baud on Wednesday Morning Open Thread: The GOP Insists There Will Be Blood Impeachment (Apr 17, 2024 @ 10:54am)
  • WaterGirl on Arizona In The Crosshairs (Apr 17, 2024 @ 10:53am)
  • Miss Bianca on Tuesday Night Open Thread (Apr 17, 2024 @ 10:52am)
  • lowtechcyclist on Wednesday Morning Open Thread: The GOP Insists There Will Be Blood Impeachment (Apr 17, 2024 @ 10:52am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!