Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

Beyond my more societial/political issue with the ad, I have a generalized marketing one that plays into it.

I imagine you've got three general groups within each generation, with varying intensities in each group. 1) Your racists, 2) you're prejudiced, 3) and your neutrals. Your racists tend to act, your prejudiced tend to just think, your neutrals tend to do neither. Again, you then have variations within each regarding frequency, intensity, etc. But going mostly with those three.

There seems to be three typical ways of "anti-racism" advertising. The "We are all the Same" method, the "Embrace Diversity" method, and the "Guilt/Shame" method.

This falls into the latter and I think it's a method that is the least useful at this point in time. Here's why...

I believe the "guilt/sham" method is one that is going to work best with the younger generations. I think group 2 and group 3 are your largest ones in these generations. I also think they're the most open to being "shamed" into it because they've been brought up and raised, more so than other generations, with the notion that racism is bad / diversity is good and do not likely have as much experience with prejudiced thoughts or racist actions on their own part in their life. It's much easier to extort a change in thought process or reaction in someone, imho, through shame/guilt when you can tie that to someone close to them rather then themselves (where self delusion and self image comes more into play)...in this case, namely the "earlier generations" as the scape goat.

However, there's two issues with that mindset and method right now predicated on one simple fact/opinion...there's more adult, middle aged, and elder populations then your young populations right now and those other three demographics skew differently in terms of the group make up.

1) The "Shame/Guilt" method more than any other method tends to extort a negative reaction from those who aren't positively affected by it more often then the other two methods. Essentially, this adds fuel to the fire of both the actively racist, those who are prejudice in their thought process, and even thos who are neutral but dislike the technique and method. The "We are all the same" and to a lesser extent "Embrace Diversity" methods I believe both have a higher propensity to inspire a relatily neutral response, and a less extreme on average negative response, by those who don't react to it positively then this method. When combined with the lower amount of generations that this will affect positively, I see the net result of this kind of advertising...especially one going to the length this one goes to...as a negative because it fans the flames worse than it fights them. Which adds into number two..

2) Ultimately, we need the older generations to continue to teach, instill, and steer the younger generations away from the racism and prejudice of the past. As you move down generation to generation the trend, imho, you go from less racists to more prejudiced and then less prejudiced to more neutrals. Thankfully, it seems that those who are prejudiced are at least open to the notion of attempting to instill a belief that racism/prejudice is bad even though they may experience it. Which is great, because for us to continue the downward trend of racism we need to continue the education. However, to me, actions like this have the inverse effect by inflaming individuals and making them less inclined or open to instilling those things as it promotes bitterness and divisiveness through its methodology.

The "Shame/Guilt" method I think works well and produces a net positive in two situations. When the attrocities occuring are just so horrific that the jarring of it may have an impact or when the actions that occur are rather unusual or andequated.

Is Racism today good? Of course not. But let's not delude ourselves also in thinking that having someone clutch their purse tight when they pass you on the street is akin to being segmented into an entirely different population segment at a public location. Or that having your resume passed over because your name sounds ethnic is like seeing people hosed down with firehoses and having dogs set on them. Or that amount and type of neighborhoods where a minority is questioned for being "in the wrong" place is anywhere near as numerous as it once was, let alone that the frequency such happens is the same. Heck, even the interaction with law enforcement would provide more horrific and frequent examples in the past then there is today.

This is not saying that bad stuff, horrilby bad stuff, doesn't happen today due to racism. This is not saying that the racism today isn't bad. What I'm saying is the average bit of racism today is far less overtly "disgusting" then it was in the past and that the frequency of the extremely disgusting behaviors are less. And as such, the use of shocking "Guilt/Shame" methods has its impact reduced compared to using such at the time of the civil rights movement. I think it's much easier to shame people, and keep them from successfully rationalizing it, when you're pointing out people being hosed down or lynched rather than losing out on a job or not getting a taxi hailed.

When your child, teen, and adolescent aged generations transition into your young adult and adult generations and you have the next group coming up I think you'll begin to be able to see more of this kind of tactic becoming perhaps a bit more useful. The younger generations would now be the ones having kids and being entrusted with their education while also being the ones less likely to be inflamed and to actually be moved by this kind of advertising. However...right now...I think this type of advertising method does more harm then good, fuels the fires and stirs controversy that negatively effects the racism debate in this country, and pushes things in the opposite direction of where it needs to go.

ThePlayDrive said:

I used to think that, but I don't anymore. I don't know how many times I've presented studies on this forum and seen others do the same that objective illustrate racism and white privilege. I don't know how many civil discussions I've had outside of this forum about those topics. It's rarely the case that it matters because more often than not, the people who don't already acknowledge white privilege don't respond to calm, polite messages with no "shock value."

Click to expand...

And do you believe the type of people you describe are going to be more likely to circum from "shock value" than they are the other methods you've tried? Or is it more likely that those individuals are simply lost causes that no matter what you're simply not going to be able to convince save for if they have some kind of monumental individual epiphany?

And...if it's the latter, then is that really the group you should be analyizing as to whether or not "shock value" is a worth while method?

I guess our difference is that I don't think that group you describe is going to be affected any more by "shock value" versions of shame/guilt advertising then they are by any other method. So I go down to the next level of type of people and feel that this kind of advertising over other methods is less useful and more harmful thus providing a net negative.

teamosil said:

They only controversy is that it acknowledges white privilege. Denying white privilege is, obviously, white supremacist. Just because this kind of thing has become acceptable on the right doesn't mean it is a reasonable viewpoint. We live in a country where the average white household has 14 times as much wealth as the average black household. In this country, today, if a white person and a black person apply for the same job with the same resume, the white person is 2.4 times more like to get an interview. A black person is 28 times more likely to be the victim of a racially motivated violent hate crime in the US today. This funhouse mirror notion on the right that even to acknowledge that, or to fight against it is "racist" is just sick. It doesn't matter how many of them do it, it is still sick. It's just cruelty and hate and nothing more.

Click to expand...

And thus you demostrate another one of the problems when you imply that the statistics you mention here are only about racism or even mostly about racism.

Hatuey said:

Actually, the income disparity between races has remained virtually the same for nearly 40 years. It's the gap between men and women which has closed.

If you'd like to know more on this subject:

Income Disparity Persists Between Blacks, Whites : NPR

Click to expand...

It's definitely interesting and I'd love to look at the actual study itself rather than simply a write up on it with no actual figures, methodology, or data.

Taking a quick look at some things myself, since you extolled the virtues of Wiki in another post I figured I'd go for the quick search and find numbers there using the link that was provided:

(adjusted for inflation in parenthesis)
Income of white males in 1950: $2,709 ($18,001)
Income of black males in 1950: $1,471 ($9,775)
Difference: 46% less for blacks

Income of white males in 2004: $31,335
Income of black males in 2004: $22,740
Difference: 27% less for blacks

Shrunk by 19% points in those 50+ years according to those numbers.

And for Women?

(adjusted for inflation in parenthesis)
Income of white women in 1950: $1,060 ($7,044)
Income of black women in 1950: $474 ($3,150)
Difference: 55% less for blacks

Income of white women in 2004: $17,648
Income of black women in 2004: $18,379
Difference: 4% less for whites

A net 59% swing for black women, actually coming out on top.

Over all for both sex.

Whites in 1950: $3,769 ($25,045)
Blacks in 1950: $1945 ($12,925)
Difference: 48% less for blacks

Whites in 2004: $48,983
Blacks in 2004: $41,119
Difference: 16% less for blacks

A net 32% drop over the 50+ years.

Now, I don’t have the actual numbers, data, methodology, etc of his study so I can’t really comment in terms of how this relates to families/households. However, based singularly on income totals for races there has definitely been a reduction.

What’s interesting is to look decade to decade as well. Let’s take males since that seems to be where it’s hitting the hardest:

‘50: 46% less
‘60: 68% less
‘70: 41% less
‘80: 40% less
‘90: 39% less
‘00: 28% less

This isn’t really surprising and kind of backs up what I was saying. You see little real increase immediately (actually, a major backlash at first). However, a small increase as you get a generation or so forward. And then in the 90’s as you get another generation or so under the belt an even larger increase. It’ll likely stagnate a little bit again then make another jump I imagine in the next decade as you have another more affluent generation come through.

You can look at other factors as well. For example, the 2003 Census showed that the gap between blacks and whites in terms of high school and college graduation was decreasing as well.

So with all do respect to the individuals study, while the increase may not be at a rapid clip the affluence of the average black individual in this country has risen a fair amount since the time of the civil rights movement and especially prior to that time. That isn't to say we should continue to strive to lowering that number further and further, but simply to state that the affluence of various generations in comparison to their peers is increasing.

For Zyph:

Okay - personally, I don't feel as if the campaign ads - the ones with messages on the faces - engage in bigoted stereotyping of whites. Now maybe if all the ads said stuff like "white people can't jump" or "white people can't dance" or "those vegetable-eating mother****ers."

If you don't understand just what the messages on the faces are saying, you're missing the point.

Let's take for instance, "We're lucky to be white." This is one of the primary premises of the argument in favor of the existence of white privilege - it isn't, nor is it meant to be, some sort of bigoted stereotype. What precisely does it mean to be lucky to be white? It means that, due to societal and institutional discrimination, white people enjoy certain privileges simply because of their skin color in relation to those of other races. The sociological data is out there - one only has to look for it.

"We're privileged that people see us - not a color." Once again, it's hard for me to conclude that this statement is somehow a bigoted stereotype of white people, but rather it's more of an observation of the concept of "white" as "raceless." Whereas many minorities tend to identify on the basis of race due to a combination of societal factors and personal pressure, white folks as a group don't experience the same types of social pressures. Now is this to say that white people are never conscious of their race? Of course not. Of COURSE it's making some sort of generalization. But that's the point - white people, on the whole, DON'T go through the same experiences many minorities have to deal with every day because whites are de facto "raceless."

I could list more examples but you get where I'm running with this.

There is no question in my mind that white privilege exists - the data are quite clear. Simply not being black or Latino confers certain advantages in society that a vast majority of whites take for granted - whether it be in the workplace, at a job interview, trying to obtain housing, etc.

The campaign is sure to piss people off. It's sure to be controversial. But it's also meant to make people think. Of course it makes generalizations. But you know what? White privilege is a generalized phenomena - that's the point. That's why these ads are being done in such a manner.

Do I think it will work? I don't know - I think it will cause some people to challenge their own beliefs and think about the things that they take for granted. But there are sure to be plenty of critics who dismiss this as "racist anti-white liberal guilt speech." That's fine, that's their prerogative. But I believe that progress is sometimes best made when people are forced and challenged to re-think their own assumptions.

I have exactly ZERO guilt for my success in life, whether white, black or yellow. Hard work is hard work, and lucky breaks happen for everyone, so these idiots can take their campaign and shove it!

As Zyphlin states (In so many words), the advertising campaign was poorly conceived. Do they really think the rednecks (Sterotyping) will suddenly say OMG, what was I thinking? Do they really think hard working white people will suddenly say, OMG, yeah I had it so good being white, I mean, all those days eating ramen noodles, buming smokes, no car, no money while in college are suddenly going to feel guilty for where they are now?

The problem with all these racist campaigns is that they fail because they assume most of us are racists, when in reality that may have been true one time in the past but today I don't think it's the case. I think most people judge people based off first impressions, not stereotypes, however, I do acknowledge that some of us cannot help but be cautious of stereotypical hoodlum looking people, and that also means white dudes with a bunch of tatoos goatee and wife beater shirts..

I think racism will always exist to some degree as long as stereotyping exists.


Tim-

Hatuey said:

The problem with the "silent (white and mostly male) majority" is that they don't really understand the level of racism being discussed. They always want to dumb it down to the most common denominator. That being how "racism" affects them in their personal lives as if it really made a difference in the societal scale of things. You ever notice that when you discuss racism on DP, you have about 10-15 people, most right wing or closeted right wingers crying about that one time they got passed over for some black guy at work? A story which can't be verified in any manner, shape or form is the information they want us to take into consideration when discussing racism. That's it. When you show them the mountains of independent sociological studies, government studies, demonstrating executive level discrimination against minorities, women, etc - they simply brush it off with a standard idiotic response of "slavery is over!", "Women get paid!" and "Obama got elected!" - then they parade their tokens - even the ones who pretend to be black on the internet - to show off how slavery is somehow a "societal problem" that affects us all equally. It really isn't. Not in the American context anyways.

White Protestant males have simply had it better in US history. There is not a SINGLE person with any kind of historiographical studies under their belt who'd deny this on purpose. That's where "white privilege" comes from. It's not really speaking about "white women" privilege, though they have benefited from it. The label targets a pretty specific demographic who for one reason of another wants to deny it actually exists. For every rich African-American, Chinese American and Hispanic-American family there exist dozens of rich white protestant families many of whom wouldn't have reached their level if it weren't for the unique accident that they were born white in a country with 200+ years of social, governmental and cultural policies that benefited protestant whites. Sure, there exist some white groups within the US who have been discriminated against. However, they're few, far in between and noticeable exceptions to the general racism experienced by visible minorities in this country.

The day the silent white mostly male majority recognizes this, we'll be able to discuss racism. Until then, we'll have to live with their personal unverifiable tales of racism and purposeful ignorance of the subject.

Click to expand...

Love it when people try to point out the exceptions to the rule to prove that somehow the rule doesn't still exist.

You've realized you have used the exact same argument to justify grossly stereotyping all whites and their experience as one where they are never "viewed as a color" or that they as a whole are always "privledged" in all situations regarding race that people use to justify saying that "blacks are more often criminals" as not being racist. That because statistics can be viewed in such a way that technically the answer is correct the gross over exaggeration or presentation or generalization across the board is reasonable and okay. Again, this is my issue with the ad. Not the notion that it's indicating white privledge, but the method in which it's trying to present its point and the bigoted stereotyping and prejudice hyperbole of generalizing the experience of individuals that are white across the board and across all times.

I know the general locatoin you live in StillBallin. You tell me that a white guy in a Gogo bar/club is seen as raceless. Are you telling me some white boy going through South East heading to Barry Farms isn't possibly being thought of as "in the wrong neighborhood"? Am I saying that whites are viewed by their race anywhere near as much or with as severe of consequences as other minotiries? Not at all. But the kind of broad, across the board, stereotyping based singularly on race that this advertisement does is the type of thing that if done about any other race is called racism and yet here it's called acceptable and not racism. The reason? Apparently because racism when used against whites is okay because it "teaches them a lesson".

Ignore the fact that apparently the lesson being taught to many is "racism is good if used against the right group" rather than "see how it feels to be treated racistly".

Hicup said:

The problem with all these racist campaigns is that they fail because they assume most of us are racists, when in reality that may have been true one time in the past but today I don't think it's the case. I think most people judge people based off first impressions, not stereotypes, however, I do acknowledge that some of us cannot help but be cautious of stereotypical hoodlum looking people, and that also means white dudes with a bunch of tatoos goatee and wife beater shirts..

Click to expand...

There's definitely still racists out there, a good number too, but I agree with you that its declining. Where we part is I don't think it's going from Racist people to Non-racists. I think the shift is more towards an intermediate location where people are prejudiced but less likely to act consiously on those thoughts in a racist way. My issue with this advertising, in part, is that it is a symptom and example of that prejudiced thinking and the way it leads individuals to unconsiously do boarderline or flat out racist things due to their prejudiced thought.

Racial stereotyping is prejudice, and to an extent that's never fully going to go away no more than the prejudice found in people towards every possible category of humanity can be made to go away. It can be lessoned, and it should be worked towards that, and it's intensity of severity can be tamped down, and we should work towards that as well...but we also have to realize that humanity is NEVER going to fully and completely stop looking at people, segmenting them off into groups, and making judgements based off that.

Example...go ask someone their opinion on Geeks or have someone walk into an anime convention and give you an immediete judgement of the type of people there

Hatuey said:

Good for it. You're playing non-sequiturs. I'm not really interested in the feel good stories you tell your kids.

Click to expand...

Well then close your eyes and don't read what I post. I understand, you're comfortable with the racism that comes from diversity training and don't want to let that go. Sad, but your choice.

Zyphlin said:

Beyond my more societial/political issue with the ad, I have a generalized marketing one that plays into it.

I imagine you've got three general groups within each generation, with varying intensities in each group. 1) Your racists, 2) you're prejudiced, 3) and your neutrals. Your racists tend to act, your prejudiced tend to just think, your neutrals tend to do neither. Again, you then have variations within each regarding frequency, intensity, etc. But going mostly with those three.

There seems to be three typical ways of "anti-racism" advertising. The "We are all the Same" method, the "Embrace Diversity" method, and the "Guilt/Shame" method.

Click to expand...

I don't think the campaign in about guilt or shame nor has anyone, that I've seen, advocated such a "method" in this thread. I think that when people point out white privilege and inequality a lot of people interpret that as an attempt to guilt or shame people when it's really just an attempt to acknowledge reality and some people feel guilty about it.

Zyphlin said:

And do you believe the type of people you describe are going to be more likely to circum from "shock value" than they are the other methods you've tried? Or is it more likely that those individuals are simply lost causes that no matter what you're simply not going to be able to convince save for if they have some kind of monumental individual epiphany?

And...if it's the latter, then is that really the group you should be analyizing as to whether or not "shock value" is a worth while method?

I guess our difference is that I don't think that group you describe is going to be affected any more by "shock value" versions of shame/guilt advertising then they are by any other method. So I go down to the next level of type of people and feel that this kind of advertising over other methods is less useful and more harmful thus providing a net negative.

Click to expand...

Some people are "lost causes" and others will respond to "shock value." I don't really think of the group as entirely monolithic when it comes to what will influence them. Shocking or angering images/words have a history of getting people to talk and think, particularly when they make people confront things that are normally easy to ignore or sweep under the rug.

Polite conversations are great for people who are open to new information and changing their mind. However, when it comes to people who aren't so open, forcing them to confront the issue sometimes goes a longer way. That said, I don't think this particularly campaign is constructed in a way that's going to get those people beyond being angry.

And as I said before, I don't think this campaign is shame/guilt based. I think that either you feel shame/guilt when you are confronted with the notion of white privilege and don't like it OR you assume that acknowledging white privilege and inequality is only done when people want to shame or guilt other people. I, personally, do not believe that white people should feel either emotion when confronted with white privilege and inequality because, for most of them, those realities are not due to anything that they, as individuals, have done.

Zyphlin said:

You've realized you have used the exact same argument to justify grossly stereotyping all whites and their experience as one where they are never "viewed as a color" or that they as a whole are always "privledged" in all situations regarding race that people use to justify saying that "blacks are more often criminals" as not being racist. That because statistics can be viewed in such a way that technically the answer is correct the gross over exaggeration or presentation or generalization across the board is reasonable and okay. Again, this is my issue with the ad. Not the notion that it's indicating white privledge, but the method in which it's trying to present its point and the bigoted stereotyping and prejudice hyperbole of generalizing the experience of individuals that are white across the board and across all times.

I know the general locatoin you live in StillBallin. You tell me that a white guy in a Gogo bar/club is seen as raceless. Are you telling me some white boy going through South East heading to Barry Farms isn't possibly being thought of as "in the wrong neighborhood"? Am I saying that whites are viewed by their race anywhere near as much or with as severe of consequences as other minotiries? Not at all. But the kind of broad, across the board, stereotyping based singularly on race that this advertisement does is the type of thing that if done about any other race is called racism and yet here it's called acceptable and not racism. The reason? Apparently because racism when used against whites is okay because it "teaches them a lesson".

Ignore the fact that apparently the lesson being taught to many is "racism is good if used against the right group" rather than "see how it feels to be treated racistly".

Click to expand...

Once again I'm not acknowledging that these ads are stereotyping or that they're racist. Aren't conservatives always going on about how racism has a clear definition and shouldn't be a term that's thrown around lightly?

These ads aren't racist. They're pointing out how privilege works and challenging whites to think about how they benefit from said privilege, and once again like I said, privilege is a generalized (in other words, a "group") phenomenon.

As for your Go-go bar/Barry Farms example, once again it's exception to the rule. It's like trying to show how good black people in America have it by pointing to the NBA, NFL, and hip-hop industry while ignoring society at large.

Does black privilege exists in certain instances? Sure it does. You don't get as much credit or respect when you're a white rapper. If you're a white football player and you're a pro-bowl caliber player at a skill position, sure, people will think that you're some kind of weird anomaly like Jeremy Lin. If you're a white boy walking through the projects or a predominantly black working-class neighborhood, hell yeah it might be dangerous for you. I don't deny that that exists, nor do I deny that it's a problem.

But when it comes to society as a whole, just how big a role does this "black privilege" play compared to white privilege when we live in a country where for the most part white people dominate in positions of power, own the vast majority of the resources, and write the rules? We're looking at the big picture here.

As for your claim that statistics are misleading - yes, I agree. As sports fans we both know that raw statistics don't tell the whole story, and you have to be careful about what conclusions you draw from the numbers.

I well aware that just because there are differences statistically between blacks and whites doesn't mean those differences are due to differences in race. However, there are mountains upon mountains of sociological studies that show that even when adjusting for socioeconomic status and education and other such factors, poor whites still enjoy advantages relative to poor blacks, and middle-class whites still enjoy advantages in society relative to middle-class blacks.

ThePlayDrive said:

I don't think the campaign in about guilt or shame nor has anyone, that I've seen, advocated such a "method" in this thread. I think that when people point out white privilege and inequality a lot of people interpret that as an attempt to guilt or shame people when it's really just an attempt to acknowledge reality and some people feel guilty about it.

Click to expand...

Advertisement/education of "white privledge" is not inherently in and of itself guilt/shame motivated. The method one advertises and utilizes white privledge is more to do with that. The fact this is "shock value" is more in line with the notion of it being a "guilt/shame" method of advertisement rather than it's use of White Privledge.

The ability for it to "shock" and create a reaction in the direction the people who made it appear to want them to go comes from the notion that it causes someone to suddenly realize this exists and feel either guilty or shameful. You took that to mean immedietely guilty or shamed from an individual level. While that is one method, it is hardly the only way. It could be guilty in a societal or racial sense that "we let this happen". Could shame in a similar way...as in ashamed of society as a whole, or race as a whole, or even a generation as a whole. It could be simply the feeling that this is a "shameful" fact.

Essentially, by stating the "guilt/shame" method, I'm suggesting the advertisings purpose is to instill a negative feeling or emotion towards the notion of race relations into a person in hopes of inspiring them to act. Personally, in almost all things, I'm a far larger supporter of positive re-enforcement in the majority of situations and especially in more broad reaching situations. The "guilt/shame" method to me is negative re-enforcement.

As you said, this is an attempt by those individuals for people to acknowledge reality as they view it (to be frank, if their "reality" is what they depict on their website, their reality is screwed up similar to those who think racism is pretty much non-existant). However, my stance wasn't suggesting what their intend RESULT of their attempt was but rather the METHOD in which they seek to get people to reach that end. Essentially...what causes the person to "acknowledge reality"? Unless we're suggesting people are so blazingly stupid and unaware and yet so vapidly manipulated that they were entirely unaware that such a thing could possibly exist in any fashion prior to seeing these signs and then suddenly simply by seeing them and with no intermediary thought or feeling they become enlightened that it does exist, then we have to think there's a middle step there between Seeing the Ad and Acknowledging Reality that joins the two things.

StillBallin75 said:

Once again I'm not acknowledging that these ads are stereotyping or that they're racist. Aren't conservatives always going on about how racism has a clear definition and shouldn't be a term that's thrown around lightly?

Click to expand...

I don't know, perhaps you should inquire with the conglomarate of "Conservatives". I could just as much say to you that "isn't it liberals who are always going on about how stereotyping a race is racism".

Do I think the people who did these ad's are racist? Hard to say, I'd probably guess "no" but its almost pointless to even make a judgement of an entire persons being based on something like that. However...to me...these ad's are an example of taking ones prejudiced stereotypes about a race and putting those prejudiced thoughts into actual action in a physical, and in my opinion negative, manner. When prejudice goes from thought to action and especially negative action, to me that begins to edge into "racism" territory. To each their own on whether they agree with this being "prejduiced" or "stereotyping" and how they view racism.

As for your Go-go bar/Barry Farms example, once again it's exception to the rule.

Click to expand...

An exception for one localized area of hundreds of thousands within the United States. These "exceptions" to the rule are not rare. Are they very common? No. But this isn't like a 1 in a 100 situation here. Which is why this idiotic stereotyping of white people as having never been viewed as their race, having never had people not treat them in certain positive ways because of their race, not to mention the ridiculousness of boiling these very interactions down simply to race is dumb and prejudiced. It's built off this assumption and notion and presentation that all white people are the same and experience the same and are treated the same based singularly off the color of their skin in all situations.

It's like trying to show how good black people in America have it by pointing to the NBA, NFL, and hip-hop industry while ignoring society at large.

Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting the amount of minority heavy neighborhoods, establishments, businesses, and other locations across the country are as small in sampling as the amount of NBA/NFL/Hip Hop people are to the total black populatoin? Not to mention one need not simply go to a minority heavy location to experience it. Based on the idiocy of this campaign we're to imagine that every minority that a white person runs into views and treats them as if they're raceless at worst and positively because they're white at best.

This is not suggesting that becuase a few outliers the rest doesn't exist. It's suggesting that because a minority of situations, but still a relevant amount, exist in a sort way that it's ridiculous to suggest that such minority simply doesn't exist because the majority happens more often.

You approve of stereotyping and making broad sweeping suggestions of individuals based singularly on nothing but their race as a means of fighting racism because...hey, it's done to whites so that's okay. To me, you're supporting something that is actually damaging to the discussion of race in this country and contributing to the very mindset and notion that it supposedly wishes to fight.

Mr. Invisible said:

I seriously don't agree with these ads as if you are trying to start up a serious conversation about race and racism in America, this really isn't the way to do it as in general people are really going to be turned off.

Click to expand...

Thank you for saying this, Mr. I. As I've noted before, for the most part, putting someone on the immediate defensive doesn't really open them up to hearing your position because they'll be too busy feeling the need to defend themselves.

Zyphlin said:

Advertisement/education of "white privledge" is not inherently in and of itself guilt/shame motivated. The method one advertises and utilizes white privledge is more to do with that. The fact this is "shock value" is more in line with the notion of it being a "guilt/shame" method of advertisement rather than it's use of White Privledge.

Click to expand...

Nah, I disagree. I don't think "shock value" aspect is going for shame/guilt. I have no doubt that that's something some people will feel just like some people will feel anger, but that doesn't speak to the intent of ad. I've posted studies and merely argued that white privilege existed before and people accuse me of trying to make whites feel guilty, but that's not the case. I think it's the same here.

The ability for it to "shock" and create a reaction in the direction the people who made it appear to want them to go comes from the notion that it causes someone to suddenly realize this exists and feel either guilty or shameful. You took that to mean immedietely guilty or shamed from an individual level. While that is one method, it is hardly the only way. It could be guilty in a societal or racial sense that "we let this happen". Could shame in a similar way...as in ashamed of society as a whole, or race as a whole, or even a generation as a whole. It could be simply the feeling that this is a "shameful" fact.

Click to expand...

I think that the campaign certainly pushes the notion that inequality is shameful because it is. However, I don't think it's try to make people, as individuals, feel ashamed or guilty. At the same time, it's primary aims appear to be education and action as in "this is the reality, let's do something about it" as opposed to, "this is the reality, let's feel bad, then do something."

Essentially, by stating the "guilt/shame" method, I'm suggesting the advertisings purpose is to instill a negative feeling or emotion towards the notion of race relations into a person in hopes of inspiring them to act. Personally, in almost all things, I'm a far larger supporter of positive re-enforcement in the majority of situations and especially in more broad reaching situations. The "guilt/shame" method to me is negative re-enforcement.

Click to expand...

So then, you think the campaign aims to guilt or shame people on an individual level at some point in the process. I disagree. Its creators probably expected negative emotions including guilty and shame, but I don't necessarily see that in the campaign an attempt to evoke them. The "shock value" for me is in presenting them in a way that forces people to confront white privilege as a real thing rather than white privilege as abstract reality.

As you said, this is an attempt by those individuals for people to acknowledge reality as they view it (to be frank, if their "reality" is what they depict on their website, their reality is screwed up similar to those who think racism is pretty much non-existant).

Click to expand...

And this is where I think the heart of your criticism exists: in the belief that the message of the campaign is false. I disagree with that and I don't think that it's "reality as I see it." I think it's reality. Period. With that statement, there's obviously the problem that everybody thinks that reality as they see it is reality, period, so me saying that alone means nothing. But the difference is that reality as I see it is supported by mountains of evidence and the other is not.

However, my stance wasn't suggesting what their intend RESULT of their attempt was but rather the METHOD in which they seek to get people to reach that end. Essentially...what causes the person to "acknowledge reality"? Unless we're suggesting people are so blazingly stupid and unaware and yet so vapidly manipulated that they were entirely unaware that such a thing could possibly exist in any fashion prior to seeing these signs and then suddenly simply by seeing them and with no intermediary thought or feeling they become enlightened that it does exist, then we have to think there's a middle step there between Seeing the Ad and Acknowledging Reality that joins the two things.

Click to expand...

There are, in fact, plenty of white Americans who have absolutely no idea that white privileged exists in any concrete manner. There are some in this thread, many on this forum who will swear on God that it's a myth and there were many at my alma mater.

If you see shame/guilt as the method, then that's something I'm not going to agree with. I see an ad that attempts to reach people by putting a face on white privilege instead of letting it exist in this abstract place where it's easy to dismiss.

StillBallin75 said:

Once again I'm not acknowledging that these ads are stereotyping or that they're racist. Aren't conservatives always going on about how racism has a clear definition and shouldn't be a term that's thrown around lightly?

These ads aren't racist. They're pointing out how privilege works and challenging whites to think about how they benefit from said privilege, and once again like I said, privilege is a generalized (in other words, a "group") phenomenon.

Click to expand...

This so much. It's hilarious/astounding to me how those who deride the lazy use of racism are so quick to use it lazily when it applies to white people. When people generalize minorities and it's pointed out, it's "the race card" and "hyperbole" and "but it's TRUE", but when someone generalizes about white people, it's "RACISM!" What a joke.

ThePlayDrive said:

This so much. It's hilarious/astounding to me how those who deride the lazy use of racism are so quick to use it lazily when it applies to white people. When people generalize minorities and it's pointed out, it's "the race card" and "hyperbole" and "but it's TRUE", but when someone generalizes about white people, it's "RACISM!" What a joke.

Click to expand...

Of course, one could easily flip this and point out that there are those who appear to see racism in a Hallmark card that uses the term "black holes" yet can't/won't see even the possibility that it exists an ad campaign that's effectively saying that you're wrong to be white.

ThePlayDrive said:

Just because white Americans can't experience racism and prejudice at the scale that minorities do doesn't mean that they can't experience it at a large enough to scale to understand it better than they might currently. My logic is that certain methods help white Americans understand it better than they do.

Click to expand...

If your logic wasn’t flawed, there would be no racism by minorities who have experienced racism against anyone else because they would have learned how it feels.

In real life, people respond differently than you seem to think they will. Racism tends to beget racism in return. Remember what happened after the Rodney King trial? How about the violence following the Trayvon Martin shooting? In the real world, people don’t respond the way you seem to think they will.

Same goes for children of abusive parents. Why do they usually grow up to abuse their own children if we use your logic?

X Factor said:

Of course, one could easily flip this and point out that there are those who appear to see racism in a Hallmark card that uses the term "black holes" yet can't/won't see it in an ad campaign that basically says you're wrong to be white.

Click to expand...

AMEN! ^^^

This whole campaign speaks of stupidity, something ytypes like Berkley students would come up with.

Racism exists, and always will. It's not limited to one group or another, ALL groups have their outspoken racists, and those that dabble in racial politics will and can ALWAYS find the outspoken one's to justify pretty much anything they do or say.. Racism is generally an individual reaction to an event or upbringing, and whether it be predicated on fallicious information, or due to an improper interpretation of the events or upbringing that precipitated one's attitude, it should never be a characterization of an entire group of people's attitudes and thoughts toward any other group of people. That's just stupid and lazy thinking!

Nuff said!


Tim-

Zyphlin said:

You approve of stereotyping and making broad sweeping suggestions of individuals based singularly on nothing but their race as a means of fighting racism because...hey, it's done to whites so that's okay. To me, you're supporting something that is actually damaging to the discussion of race in this country and contributing to the very mindset and notion that it supposedly wishes to fight.

Click to expand...

Well, since you're being frank, let me be the same. You're so busy clutching your pearls, that you're not grasping two main things:

1. When you're depicting a general/societal phenomenon (which white privilege is), there will be generalizations. It's the same when talking about black incarceration rates and education disparities. You can't talk about societal patterns without generalizations. So you either ignore it to avoid offending people or you address it and deal with the consequences. Although you said there are better ways to discuss this, you seem geared toward the former since you haven't accepted the fundamental reality that it's impossible to talk about white privilege without generalized language.

2. It's better to confront the negative aspects of yourself or of the population you belong to than to ignore them or have your hand held while talking them.

To explain, nobody likes to see themselves depicted negatively, as a group or as an individual. Regardless of wants, there are negative things about or around most individuals and groups. You can either confront them, whine when people point it out or request that people hold your hand in order to talk about it. Most people do the last two, unfortunately (which is what you're doing). For instance, there are black people who REFUSE to acknowledge problems within the black population that contribute to their socioeconomic place in society. There are white people who REFUSE to acknowledge problems within the white population that maintain inequality. And so on...

People just need to stop whining, acknowledge the negative aspects of their population or themselves and get on with it.

X Factor said:

Of course, one could easily flip this and point out that there are those who appear to see racism in a Hallmark card that uses the term "black holes" yet can't/won't see even the possibility that it exists an ad campaign that's effectively saying that you're wrong to be white.

Click to expand...

I agree. There are hypocrites on both sides of the discussion. /shrug

The first rule of white club is that you never talk about white club.

The second rule of white is that there is no white club.

Zyphlin said:

I don't know, perhaps you should inquire with the conglomarate of "Conservatives". I could just as much say to you that "isn't it liberals who are always going on about how stereotyping a race is racism".

Do I think the people who did these ad's are racist? Hard to say, I'd probably guess "no" but its almost pointless to even make a judgement of an entire persons being based on something like that. However...to me...these ad's are an example of taking ones prejudiced stereotypes about a race and putting those prejudiced thoughts into actual action in a physical, and in my opinion negative, manner. When prejudice goes from thought to action and especially negative action, to me that begins to edge into "racism" territory. To each their own on whether they agree with this being "prejduiced" or "stereotyping" and how they view racism.



An exception for one localized area of hundreds of thousands within the United States. These "exceptions" to the rule are not rare. Are they very common? No. But this isn't like a 1 in a 100 situation here. Which is why this idiotic stereotyping of white people as having never been viewed as their race, having never had people not treat them in certain positive ways because of their race, not to mention the ridiculousness of boiling these very interactions down simply to race is dumb and prejudiced. It's built off this assumption and notion and presentation that all white people are the same and experience the same and are treated the same based singularly off the color of their skin in all situations.



Are you seriously suggesting the amount of minority heavy neighborhoods, establishments, businesses, and other locations across the country are as small in sampling as the amount of NBA/NFL/Hip Hop people are to the total black populatoin? Not to mention one need not simply go to a minority heavy location to experience it. Based on the idiocy of this campaign we're to imagine that every minority that a white person runs into views and treats them as if they're raceless at worst and positively because they're white at best.

This is not suggesting that becuase a few outliers the rest doesn't exist. It's suggesting that because a minority of situations, but still a relevant amount, exist in a sort way that it's ridiculous to suggest that such minority simply doesn't exist because the majority happens more often.

You approve of stereotyping and making broad sweeping suggestions of individuals based singularly on nothing but their race as a means of fighting racism because...hey, it's done to whites so that's okay. To me, you're supporting something that is actually damaging to the discussion of race in this country and contributing to the very mindset and notion that it supposedly wishes to fight.

Click to expand...

Basically my response is what TPD said. You can't talk about white privilege without using generalized language. Just like you can't talk about gender discrimination, discrimination against homosexuals, etc. without using generalized language. We're talking about groups here. Generalized language is inherent to the nature of the discussion. Generalities permeate these discussions because it's necessary. Doesn't mean that the claim that white privilege exists, and point out that it exists, is illegitimate simply because it involves generalities and generalized language.