StarDestroyer.Net BBS

King Kong wrote:

Lord Sander wrote:Uh, no. We have a holiday devoted to Saint Nicholas handing out presents to children.

I heard an NPR story about Christmas in Holland: describing a Saint Nicholas who resided in Spain, who used to be the archbishop of Turkey, and would kidnap naughty children on Christmas assisted by 6-8 black men.

Are you referring to this, StarshipTitanic? IIRC, they mentioned at the end of the piece that many of these Christmas elements had been removed in recent years.

Yes, and here's a Wikipedia article.

StarshipTitanic wrote:Don't the Dutch have a holiday devoted to putting on blackface and dressing up like sugar plantation slaves?

Grasscutter wrote:There's one explanation for why people in the U.S. are freaking out over the image but nobody is in Holland. Slavery continued for significantly longer in the U.S.

Slavery was outlawed in Curaçao in 1863, the same year as the Emancipation Proclamation (which I know didn't fully outlaw slavery in the US).

I stand corrected. It seems Americans are more sensative to these types of images, or at least more outspoken about them. This isn't a bad thing to me mind you.

Max wrote:Why does everyone immediately play the racism card? That's just retarded, IMO. The white chick is kicking the ass of the black one in that poster, but in a different poster, the black chick is totally winning.

Got a link?

Nobody would ever call the other one racist.

If the caption was "Black is coming", I think quite a few people would consider it racist, or as some people call it, "reverse racist".

You know, the one where the black girl is winning. However, as soon as you put a white person in a clearly dominant position over a black person, angels lose their wings or something.

Yeah, because the strong attacking the weak is no different from the weak attacking the strong, right?

In any case, I can't believe anyone could seriously deny that this poster has racist implications. The picture by itself might not, but the caption makes it a slam-dunk.

Praxis wrote:I used to live in Holland and I'm talking to some of my old dutch friends over MSN right now. There is absolutely zero uproar in Holland. Nobody's complaining about it. Only Americans are getting all uptight.

The poster's intent was to show contrast.

IMHO, we Americans are a tad oversensitive.

Have you guys seen the other poster?
Don't Quote Images!

Looks like people are only showing the poster that they construe as racist, and not the one in which the black woman is shown as stronger.

This is the pic in question. I for the record think that the picture has racist conations and sony has lost their race sensitvy in recent ads. (the "getto" squirrels come up as a prime example of this)

Wait, the VGCats thing was actually based on an ad? What's this ghetto squirrels? *googles*

EDIT - heh, Sony has apparently been trying 'edgy' (read, stupid) marketing recently.

I think Sony just wants to stir up controversy, much like Ann Coulter or Dan Brown have done with their books. If The Da Vinci Code is any indication, it works (it was still on the USAToday bestselling list last week, after being out for several years).

I myself am struggling with a kneejerk reaction to deny, or at least look beyond, the racist implications. My gut feeling is to simply take the meaning of the ads at face value -- the two women represent the different casing colors, and "White is Coming" simply means there will be a white PSP in the near future -- rather than attributing extra symbolic meaning to the images. I just don't see any reason to try to associate a single white woman dominating a single black woman (especially when other ads [e.g. here] depict the opposite) with a racial struggle, and the fact the association leaps to mind is reason enough to discourage it.

My dutch friend sent me another message:

Orcrist says:
well the whole racist PSP add thing finaly made the paper here, with the headline ''strange guys, those americans''
Orcrist says:
its not even first page news, noone seems to give a damn here
Orcrist says:
they are getting plenty of media attention elsewhere, but almost nothing here. Hehe

Darth Wong wrote:

Max wrote:Why does everyone immediately play the racism card? That's just retarded, IMO. The white chick is kicking the ass of the black one in that poster, but in a different poster, the black chick is totally winning.

Got a link?

I posted it on the second page of this thread.
Reposting:

Redleader34 wrote:This is the pic in question. I for the record think that the picture has racist conations and sony has lost their race sensitvy in recent ads. (the "getto" squirrels come up as a prime example of this)

That's a very good point, and the Mexican dustballs, too. Those ads made me absolutely furious, though. They were the only advertisements so offensive, poorly made, and annoying that they would actually make me change the channel whenever I saw them.

I looked at the link. The women are supposed to represent colour contrasts. I don't see how this does anything to refute the notion that it's racist; it portrays contrasts in colour as being intrinsically a source of conflict. Switching white for black doesn't do jack shit to change this fact.

Ah conterversy, it always works. I honestly want to know what the sony ad excutives are thinking when they make these ads. I just want to know

And now a person [I.E. me] who had no clue about the existance of the PSP white is made aware of its existance because of a controversial marketing campaign which lead to a word-of-mouth effect.

The marketing department has done its job. Tastelessly, but marketing is sometimes a messy business.

I honestly want to know what the sony ad excutives are thinking when they make these ads. I just want to know

"How can we make as many people aware of our highly unoriginal and dull product as possible with our limited budget?"
"Let's use thinly vieled racial overtones in our campaign!"

Darth Wong wrote:I looked at the link. The women are supposed to represent colour contrasts. I don't see how this does anything to refute the notion that it's racist; it portrays contrasts in colour as being intrinsically a source of conflict. Switching white for black doesn't do jack shit to change this fact.

I actually find it erotic (both of them), and not the slightest thought of racism popped into my head. I shit you not.

Darth Wong wrote:I looked at the link. The women are supposed to represent colour contrasts. I don't see how this does anything to refute the notion that it's racist; it portrays contrasts in colour as being intrinsically a source of conflict. Switching white for black doesn't do jack shit to change this fact.

Aye, but I think when we're saying "is it racist?" we're just asking "is it offensively racist?".

Lord Woodlouse wrote: Aye, but I think when we're saying "is it racist?" we're just asking "is it offensively racist?".

It puts out the message that race causes conflict, that's pretty offensive. Besides, is there any kind of racism that isn't offensive?

Mongoose wrote:

Lord Woodlouse wrote: Aye, but I think when we're saying "is it racist?" we're just asking "is it offensively racist?".

It puts out the message that race causes conflict, that's pretty offensive. Besides, is there any kind of racism that isn't offensive?

Depends on your threshold of offense. It clearly uses the skin of people, the race of them, to make a point unrelated to race. The picture could be seen as racist, but the message they intend to give not (and clearly various people have interpreted it differently, in spite of the picture being fundamentally racist when you get down to it).

But to give an example oooh... something like an actor's role in a TV series. They say he has to be black, for instance. That's racist but it's not really offensively so because it's probably just because the role demands that they're black.

Lord Woodlouse wrote:Depends on your threshold of offense. It clearly uses the skin of people, the race of them, to make a point unrelated to race. The picture could be seen as racist, but the message they intend to give not (and clearly various people have interpreted it differently, in spite of the picture being fundamentally racist when you get down to it).

Are you a telepath and can see into the minds of whatever ad designer made this campaign? As some have noted in this thread, the purpose could have easily and plausably been "Let's make an ad with racist overtones so there's lots of discussion about it."

For centuries, black men in the American South were lynched for even the rumor of having raped a white woman. For centuries, black men were oppressed by white slave-owners. Both ads in this thread can easily be taken as insensative allusions to that history. Guess why these ads are only in Europe.

As for "threshold of offense," I'm going to guess that you're a member of the majority ethnic group in wherever you're from.

But to give an example oooh... something like an actor's role in a TV series. They say he has to be black, for instance. That's racist but it's not really offensively so because it's probably just because the role demands that they're black.

Obviously you've never heard of a token black (or any ethnicity) character so reviewers don't complain of an Aryan Nation-style cast.

I don't think that it's that bad. I can see how it can be seen as pretty aweful, but then look at it in a different way. High contrast. Black and white together is something that is everywhere and can look pretty damn good. Both of the ladies there are not bad looking. In fact, some would say sexy. I really don't find it in bad taste. How do you know the artist is white? What's keeping them from being another skin tone? I myself do not know this either, and if someone would like to tell me, cool. But things like this are not supposed to be taken in such a bad context. The person who made this might have thought they was making that would draw the crowed in, not turn in away. But that's just my take.

They probably didn't try to be racist, it just didn't occur to them that people would construe it as racist.

Glocksman wrote:Heh... when you see both pictures, it looks more like Sony is using S&M pictures rather than racist pictures.

Thank you!

Yes, I thought racism after a bit, but my immediate reaction was, 'Ooh, dominatrix woman in white with a slave, sexy.'

Seeing the second one just confirmed that vibe for me. I don't think Sony is stupid enough to deliberately put out racist ads, though perhaps stupid enough to accidently do it. Seeing as how that didn't seem to be the actual intent, though, I personally will hop on the S&M bandwagon and have fun with it.

StarshipTitanic wrote:
Are you a telepath and can see into the minds of whatever ad designer made this campaign? As some have noted in this thread, the purpose could have easily and plausably been "Let's make an ad with racist overtones so there's lots of discussion about it."

Considering I implicitly said earlier in the thread that that's exactly what they might have done I should think the answer to that is fairly obvious.

It's possible, yes, I just consider it very unlikely.

For centuries, black men in the American South were lynched for even the rumor of having raped a white woman. For centuries, black men were oppressed by white slave-owners. Both ads in this thread can easily be taken as insensative allusions to that history. Guess why these ads are only in Europe.

*shrug* Please tell me where I said I have no sympathy for anyone who interprets this as offensively racist.

As for "threshold of offense," I'm going to guess that you're a member of the majority ethnic group in wherever you're from.

Sure am. That does not mean I lack empathy, however.

Obviously you've never heard of a token black (or any ethnicity) character so reviewers don't complain of an Aryan Nation-style cast.

Of course I have. But I hardly think every black acting role is a "token black" (the implication itself is pretty offensive, I should think). I'm not saying a black acting role can't be offensively racist, I'm saying it can be racist without being offensive. Like having the acting role for a kid who needs to be black because both parents are played by black actors. That's racist because you discriminate, but it's not offensive because it's just plain common sense.

Lord Woodlouse wrote:(Snip everything)

It didn't occur to me at the time to think of "racism" as "discrimination based on race" and "discrimination" as "careful choosing" because the word "racism" carries a negative connotation practically everyplace where English is spoken. So yes, you are correct.

Lord Woodlouse wrote:But I hardly think every black acting role is a "token black" (the implication itself is pretty offensive, I should think).

Didn't say you did, did I?

StarshipTitanic wrote: Didn't say you did, did I?

No, but you did act like I've never heard of such a thing as a "token black guy", implying that this must have some kind of significance to the prior statement. It did not.

Lord Woodlouse wrote:No, but you did act like I've never heard of such a thing as a "token black guy", implying that this must have some kind of significance to the prior statement. It did not.

I admit a weakness to being crass.

Look, I'm just as ready to jump on the "1 h8 s0ny1!1!!!!one!!eleven" as the rest of you, (god knows I won't be buying a PS3 for a long time, and will probably never get a PSP) but this is Sony Europe, not sony america, and as has been said many times in this thread, Europeans don't find this racist.

This is a perfectly acceptable ad for Holland.

Get over it.