Recently,
the kids clothing brand Gap has been criticized for an advertisement that some
have perceived as racist. Gap released a clothing campaign with the help
of television personality and cultural icon Ellen DeGeneres encouraging girls
to "be themselves." The ad, featuring four girls from Le Petit
Cirque, has the girls in various gymnastic poses, including one taller girl
leaning her arm on the head of a smaller black girl, who happens to be her
adopted sister. The ad, which you can see here, was almost instantly decried by many black
activists, who claimed the portrayal of the only black girl in the picture as
an armrest was detestable and a perfect example of passive racism.
When
I first heard about this controversy, my first reaction was that the whole
thing was just a big overreaction to what, at the time, I didn’t even think was
big enough to be construed as a public relations faux pas. To think that a company like Gap would
intentionally put a black girl in the position to bear the weight of her white
counterpart seemed (and still seems) ridiculous to me. The idea that anyone could take offense to
such a small detail of what was certainly meant to be a cute, well-meaning
campaign bolstering confidence in young girls to be who they are seemed more
like people looking for trouble where there wasn’t any than any real examples
of racism.
But
thinking about it more, and seeing so many people taking offense to something I
didn’t see as particularly offensive, I began to see where the problem really
lay. The issue isn’t that the ad is offensive,
because in a vacuum there’s no way this message could be taken as racist. Simply having those girls stand there
together can’t possibly be taken as a slight toward any race, regardless of
their poses. It would only be two
sisters acting like sisters normally do.
The problem with the ad lies not in what it has the girls doing, but
what is has them not doing, or more specifically, what the black girl isn’t
doing. Having her static and standing,
arms crossed, underneath her white sister while the other two white girls make
athletic poses, while not in the least offensive in and of itself, stands out
in a world where there are so few black female role models for younger black
girls to aspire to. Here was an
opportunity for Gap to show a black girl who already was part of a circus and
clearly could be an example for other girls, even those older than she is, in a
positive light. Instead, they let that opportunity pass by, and, when viewed in
this light, did so in a decidedly shocking manner. The problem lies not with the ad, but with
the total message the ad construes.
I see your point, and I both understand and respect it. However, I do not believe that the GAP was trying to project a racially charged message. I see that the girl is not doing anything, but same could be said about many other advertisements, many with a similar set up. So, why this ad? I think that there is such a controversy about this ad because of the combination of the pose and the models age. The girl leaning on her is older, therefore is thought to have more authority, which when added with her stance, could appear that she is overpowering her younger sister, who in this case happens to be a minority
ReplyDeleteI agree that in no way was GAP trying to make a race an issue at all in their advertisement, but the problem to me lies in the contrast between the black girl standing in contrast to her white sisters, as well as the "subordinate" pose so many people have taken issue with. Like I said, in a vacuum this message has nothing wrong with it, but in such a racially charged atmosphere as we are in now, you have to be careful what you might be saying in regards to race, and I can see how such a message as they construed could be seen as discriminating.
DeleteI can agree that often, people can take offense to things that are not meant to be portrayed that way. I also agree that because of the way society portrays non-whites, it is necessary for marketing to account for the many ways something like this can be interpreted. We live in a racially charged society and advertising as well as citizens must keep that in mind as we create commercials, etc., post on Instagram, Facebook, and other forms of social media. Often such issues are not intentional, but thoughtless. We cannot always just assume these things are accidents, though, because racism is still a major issue in our society, and sometimes these things are very intentional.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this story I saw a parallel with what happened here on our campus a few weeks ago with the sock monkey incident. In that incident a sock monkey stuffed animal was hung outside of a dorm window by a noose around its neck. A large number of people on this campus reacted because this incident appeared to some as a mock lynching of sorts. As it turns out the student implicated in the act had done this as a prank for one of his friends and had no intentions of making a racial statement. None-the-less the campus took several days to discuss the incident and even though this was not intended as a racial message, the student body used it as a launching point for further discussions about race relations on this campus. This is where I see the parallel with the Gap advertisement. Neither Gap nor this Rhodes student went out to make a statement about race. These actions can be boiled down to lack of thoughtfulness and poor choices. I suppose the main takeaway from these events should be that in this current climate in our society we must be extra thoughtful when it comes to what we say and do.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of Roberts comment, I would have to agree that people are beginning to take events out of context and try to manipulate racism in certain ways. I believe that sometimes things are taken too far and I believe that GAP in no way was trying to be intentionally racist. I mean being racist nowadays is in no way popular in society and would in no way help them sell their product. Thinking logically, it is pretty easy to interpret a mistake. GAP is in the business of making money and by offending part of your clientele you are completely losing out on a portion of the market. Because of this, there is no way that they would intentionally try to destroy their own business. Another example mentioned by Robert was the sock monkey incident. Although it looks absolutely terrible, the student actually did this as a joke with multiple of his roommates stuffed animals. Regardless of whether or not he meant it, I will acknowledge why people would be upset, I mean it looks so unbelievably racist. At the same time, I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone would make a gesture that unbelievably uncalled for. The consequences would be one expulsion, and two extreme media coverage. In essence, his life would be completely over. Talking to this individual, I truly believe he did not mean to harm anyone in his actions. He was just being so incredibly stupid; does that make it a proper excuse? No, there is no excuse, however, I do offer a sense of understanding. Should there be consequences for these actions? Yes, but I don’t think you should ruin his entire life for a prank gone completely and utterly wrong. I am confident that anyone who talks to this individual would feel the same way. I can honestly say, that in no way is this student a racist.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to me that Gap was under fire for making a racist add, while recently—on April 29th—one of its brands (Old Navy) has been attacked by the other end of the political spectrum for an add featuring an interracial family. Some of the angry-response tweets on twitter include: “My family and I will never step into an @OldNavy store again. This miscegenation junk is rammed down our throats from every direction.” “@OldNavy Abosolutely disgusting. What’s next? Gender neutral bathrooms? Pedophilia acceptance propaganda?! Never shopping here again.” And the most horrifying, in my opinion: “Old Navy HATES White babies! It takes a White mother and a White father to make a White baby. Stop #WhiteGenocide.” The article continues with the supportive responses and promises to shop at Old Navy stores.
ReplyDeleteHere’s the link to the article: https://www.buzzfeed.com/juliareinstein/people-are-supporting-old-navy-after-it-was-attacked-by-raci?utm_term=.slxkZnPOV#.pgOYbqGvV
I agree with most of these comments, no Gap was not intentionally trying to be racist. And until this issue was brought to my attention I would have never viewed it this way. I think that this viewpoint stems from a long history of racism. After so much time spent being persecuted there is cause for black people in America to be hypersensitive to racial issues. I can't really speculate on what the creator of this adds intentions were but the fact that there was such backlash certainly suggest there had to have been something wrong with it.
ReplyDelete