Racist Super Bowl Commericals
Put forth on February 6, 2008 by XicanoPwr
Posted in Prejudices, Propaganda, Racism
Welcome Deadspin readers.
During the Superbowl this year, SaleGenie just went a bit too far. They ran two commercial during the Super Bowl that borders on racism. The first animated cartoon depicted an Indian, by the name of “Ramesh,” who is considered to be the worst “salesman” at Acme Widget. His boss, Hank Bulleymonge, comes down on Ramesh to double his output or he is fired. However, Ramesh is worried and explains to his boss, in a crudely done stereotypical Indian accent that if he is fired he will not be able to feed his SEVEN KIDS! Which the boss states, he does not care.
The second commercial features a couple of panda bears, Ching Ching and Ling Ling, who are having trouble getting customers into Ling Ling’s Furniture Shack. Ching Ching decides to call the Panda Psychic to seek help. The psychic Panda suggests that they contact Salesgenie.com for 100 free sales leads. And like the first commercial, the commercial was obviously trying to capitalize characters’ synthetic stereotypical “Chinese” accents.
Salesgenie.com president Vinod Gupta has recently apologized for his two offensive SuperBowl ads, according to the New York Times. Gupta told the Times he did not think the commercials would have offended anyone.
“We never thought anyone would be offended,” said Mr. Gupta, who developed and wrote both commercials himself.
“The pandas are Chinese,” he said. “They don’t speak German.”
Mr. Gupta also told the Times he was going to continue to run the Salesgenie commercial featuring “Ramesh” because most of the complaints had to with the pandas than Ramesh. Although this may seem like a minor victory, however, it is sad that it had to come to consumer complaints for this to occur. It is even more troubling that Gupta still is unable to comprehend as to why his commercials are considered offensive.
The fact is stereotypes can have substantial implications in a domain such as race relations. When one thinks of racial prejudice, it is often attributed to African Americans or Latinas/os, because Asian Americans are typically thought of as being America’s “model minority.” However, as my good blogamigo Kai at Zucky has documented, Asian Pacific Americans also experience racial prejudice.
The problem with these commercials is not that the accent is a poor imitation, but it continues to perpetuate the stereotypes of Indian and Chinese people in the US. In other words, the racial cues embedded in the commercial will only continue evoking negative associations among Asian American. While some would make the argument that the commercial was meant to raise a giggle and that people shouldn’t so quick whip out the ‘R’ word for someone making fun of your accent. In fact, Gupta, who is of Indian descent, makes this argument.
“People have been making fun of my accent for years,” said Mr. Gupta, who described himself in the interview as half-Indian and half-Jewish. “And I love it.”
Of course, the stereotypes and jabs aren’t always so blatant, though they can be just as unsettling. True, there are people who do think a Ghandi-like Indian accent or a Chinese “ching chong” are hilarious, but, the sad truth is, they are missing the point. When a stereotypes are repeated, those stereotype do become the norm and a frame of reference for a person’s entire cultural group and ultimately it becomes more difficult to avoid the stereotypes and clichés from our current racially biased system.
Understanding racial cues is very important, because depending how we interpret these cues will shape our opinions towards members of racial and ethnic groups. When commercials like these air, they tend to make explicit references - either by visual or auditory cues - to race, which then trigger racial thinking by activating past information held within our long-term memory about that racial and ethnic minority group. In other words, racial attitudes are primarily based on personal experiences, salient facts or events.
While one might be inclined to dismiss as being absurd, studies within the field of social psychology have found this to be true. In Malcolm Gladwell’s book, “The Tipping Point,” Gladwell explores and explains the complexity of social behavior with compelling and supporting examples. Gladwell writes that social problems are like a virus, he writes, “Ideas and products and messages and behaviors spread just like viruses do,” (20). Gladwell explains that messages don’t just go in one ear and out the other but makes an impact. He considers the power of context to define how events are perceived. In his book, he mentions the case of Bernhard Goetz, the individual who shot four youths who menaced him on a New York subway in 1984. Because the shooting came at a particularly crime-ridden period in the city’s history, Goetz was regarded as a hero.
What Gupta doesn’t realizing, even though the ad did not make any visual or explicit verbal references to race, the racial cues embedded within the commercial does activate racial thinking among people of color - especially Asian Americans - and White Americans. It is this kind of denial that is the root cause for the disparity we currently are having in this country between whites and people of color. And it is this type of behavior that explains why people feel they can continue mocking the appearance and the behavior of people of color.
We must continue questioning the reasons people are able to twist reality in such a way that conforms to contemporary socio-political “norms.” We must continue to put on Vinod Gupta to stop running both commercials. If, not, we must mobilize a campaign to boycott not only Salesgenie.com but also InfoUSA.
Related posts
| 
Print This Post
|
This is the blog of Edmundo "XicanoPwr" Rocha, a social worker, an activist, freelance writer and founder and editor of The Sanctuary. My interests include: immigration reform, critical race theory and it's interaction with equality/inequality and freedom/oppression as they relate to the experiences of people of color in the Americas.
Para Justicia y Libertad is a Latino-centered political blog focusing on the humanistic perspective of politics, history, and society as they relate to the Latina/o community throughout Texas and the United States.
Entries (RSS)
13 Responses to “Racist Super Bowl Commericals”
2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
11 Comments
You can follow any responses to this entry through the
Comments (RSS) feed.
I’ve read this post and the New York Times article linked in it a couple of times and I still can’t understand what was racist about the commercials. Please explain what exactly was racist to a non-Chicano Studies person like myself?
The closest thing you give to an answer was this,
The problem with these commercials is not that the accent is a poor imitation, but it perpetuates the stereotypes of Indian and Chinese people in the US.
Perpetuates the stereotypes of Indian and Chinese people in the US? What stereotype is it perpetuating exactly? That Indians speak a different language? Or maybe it is that Giant Panda’s are native to China? (they are!)
You say his accent was a poor imitation, I say it was close to the real thing. I am an engineer, an industry with the highest concentration of Indians (oh wait, am I perpetuating stereotypes? do tell!), and I work with many Indians personally, I’ve had Indian office mates and my first roommate in my condo was a native of India…and based on my personal experience I would say his accent was very similar to what you would expect from your typical Indian. So again, how was his commercial ‘racist’?
Here is an apt quote from the New York Times article linked above,
Restraint on using ethnic images has increased the popularity of actors who appear to be white preppy types, who are cast as comic foils in campaigns for brands like Smirnoff Raw Tea and Budweiser beer.
It shows one of the many ways the sensitivity police is doing minorities more harm than good.
HP, that reminds me of Joe Pesci’s famous quote:
It is better to be typecast than not cast.
I think these Super Bowl commercials
are not inherently racist, but rather
what I like to call “Taco Bell racist”
in the sense that the ethnic group
in question is being shown in a
one-dimensional manner, that is, that
only one aspect of Chinese people or
of Indian people are being shown in
the commercial. But as HP said,
these aspects shown in these two
commercials are true of Chinese and
Indian people, although I’m not sure
how many Chinese people are named
Ching Ching, or perhaps this moniker
was meant as an allusion to all the
increased revenue that could be
realized from using the Sales Genie
service (i.e., “Ka-Ching!).
I do liken this situation to that of
the Taco Bell Chihuahua which was
retired from the fast food eatery’s
commercial spots because Latinos (more specifically those of Mexican ancestry) found the
commercial offensive. I don’t think
there are any Mexicans,
Mexican-Americans or Xicanos who
don’t like tacos. I am Latino but
not Mexican (I know many Americans
are too dumb to make such a simple
distinction) and I like tacos too, as
do many other Americans who have no
ethnic ties to Mexico.
The saddest aspect of the Taco Bell
incident was that Carlos Alazraqui, a
Latino who played the voice of the
Taco Bell chihuahua, was out of a
paying gig thanks to the PC crowd.
Let’s hope the same fate does not
happen to the South Asian business
owner of Sales Genie.
The ads did strike me as racist. Not all instances of nonwhite actors or characters are racist (I’m calling out your strawman, HP), that is a pretty silly supposition, but these ads–especially the panda one–were.
I think whatever Gupta said is cynical b.s. It reminds me of that sculptor a couple years ago who made those pieces of Britney naked on a bear rug and Hillary Clinton with huge knockers. Maybe it was an ironic statement, maybe it was art, but for sure it was a way to get a bunch of easy publicity for the creator. He and the gallery owner gave the idiot press a bunch of lines which they faithfully parroted, like “A superstar at Britney’s young age having a child is rare in today’s celebrity culture. This dedication honors Britney for the rarity of her choice and bravery of her decision.” Um, yeah.
My take is that Gupta is cynically banking on outrage about the ads leading to the ads being condemned and discussed in the media, leading to increased exposure, leading to more clicks on his website. It’s $$ plain and simple. He can spend a lot of money to make anodyne ads and run them over and over like most companies, or he can leverage one or two well-placed ads into a media furor with his product at the center. He has no brand name to tarnish–he’s trying to get a brand name and doesn’t care how he does it. He has no radio show to lose like Imus. No one even knows who he is. And he has the unassailable defense of being a person of color himself–so he can’t be racist, you see?!
It’s trash.
Not all instances of nonwhite actors or characters are racist (I’m calling out your strawman, HP)
My strawman? Where did I say contrary?
I guess I’ll continue to wait with bated breath for an explanation of what exactly is racist about any of the two films….
HP, you quoted with approval this from the NY Times article:
Restraint on using ethnic images has increased the popularity of actors who appear to be white preppy types
then stated “the sensitivity police is doing minorities more harm than good.” I took this to mean that, since the “sensitivity police” criticize any representation of people of color in the media, the media is reluctant to put out any representations at all, which ends up hurting the very communities the criticism is supposed to protect. I don’t know if I’m a member of the “sensitivity police,” but your implication that liberals are unhappy with any minority representation at all is a strawman. The opposite is true: we want more such representation. Please correct me if I’ve misinterpreted what you said.
XP went into an extensive explanation in his post of why the ads were racist–if none of that swayed you, I don’t think I’m going to in this comment.
Tell me this: Do you think Mickey Rooney’s character in Breakfast at Tiffany’s was racist? That is what I thought of when I saw–or rather, heard–the panda commercial. Playing accents and other cultural signifiers for laughs–e.g., Amos and Andy–is a fine line to walk, and Gupta crossed right over it.
Again, his feigned surprise at the reaction to the ads is pretty transparent. From the Times article:
Mr. Gupta contrasted the “millions of dollars” Anheuser-Busch spent on its seven Super Bowl commercials with what he said was the cost of his spots, $50,000.
He wanted his ads to have the maximum impact for the minimum cost. He probably saw how much attention the ads that got pulled from last year’s superbowl received (remember the go-daddy strip girl?) and thought that was the way to go. Here’s the strategy: stir up a controversy, get people to blog about it, then the papers pick it up, he “has to” yank the ad from TV because people were offended, and then everyone goes and watches it on YouTube–all for only $50K. How many people knew about salesgenie before and how many know about it now? Pretty savvy, if you ask me, but also pretty cynical.
Here’s another I think. Has anyone ever used “mamacita” in a nice manner? will giving this teddy bear get you slapped?
http://shop.vermontteddybear.com/mamacita.html
Thank you yave for your spot on your responses.
It is all about about selling a gimmick in order to sell a product. That is why minorities and women are constantly being exploited in everyday advertisements. Racism and sexism are problems that have and continue to go unnoticed in advertising.
These gimmicks have been going for a long time. For example, Frito-Lay Corporation had Frito Bandito which was an “unshaven, unfriendly, and leering” bandito who stole Anglos’ corn chips at gunpoint. So HP, using your argument, I would have to assume you speak with a heavy think Mexican accent and dress up like a Mexican bandito. There is a reason why Frito-Lay took down this commercial.
The fact is, media and social attitudes feed off each other. The media plays a role in creating and perpetuating ethnic and racial stereotypes and preexisting biases and prejudices in society also spread through private means, such as schools, family and friends, thus, shaping the consumptive expectations of media audiences and the prejudices of those in media.
And as yave pointed out, the real winner is salesgenie who is probably making money write now. There needs to be a public awakening, for racism should not be used in any situation, especially not to sell products. Advertisers need to take responsibility for their own actions and to end this type of exploitation.
yave begnet,
I took this to mean that, since the “sensitivity police” criticize any representation of people of color in the media, the media is reluctant to put out any representations at all, which ends up hurting the very communities the criticism is supposed to protect. (emphasis added)
I didn’t mean to imply such strong language as “any” and “all”, only that by being overtly sensitive, the marginal cost goes up, which hurts the marginal minority employee…surely you agree to that, right?
Usually I am reluctant to use economic language to convey my point on a Chicano blog (the only economics they have probably read is Marx and maybe, sometimes, some Stiglitz) but I’ve read some of your posts and you seem well versed in the language. I hope this helps explain what I meant.
Playing accents and other cultural signifiers for laughs–e.g., Amos and Andy–is a fine line to walk, and Gupta crossed right over it.
See, this is where we disagree…as I said above, I don’t think the accent was fake, that is (generally) how an Indian sounds. What should the producer have done to avoid the criticism? Put an Indian that speaks without an accent at all? What, in your view, would have satisfied the sensitivity police?
Second, even if one assumes the producer intentionally garbled the accent and was trying to make fun of it, how does that make it racist? Offensive, okay…bigoted, maybe…but racist? I ask in sincerity…even if we disagree, I’d at least like to understand your point of view, which I still don’t think I fully do.
When I first watched the video I had honestly assumed the criticism was on the seven kids part, as that is clearly a false generality of Indians. Not the language.
Btw, I have not seen Mickey Rooney’s character in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, so I can’t answer that.
I completely agree with your conclusion though, I was going to write that as well when I first responded but decided to leave it out. Whether he intended it or not, the negative publicity is certainly pleasing in his eyes. In other words, the sensitivity police does twice the damage - gives him the publicity he wants and reduces the marginal minority employees job pool.
XP,
The fact is, media and social attitudes feed off each other. The media plays a role in creating and perpetuating ethnic and racial stereotypes and preexisting biases and prejudices in society also spread through private means, such as schools, family and friends, thus, shaping the consumptive expectations of media audiences and the prejudices of those in media.
This is a chicken and egg thing - I am willing to grant that the “media plays a role in creating and perpetuating ethnic and racial stereotypes and preexisting biases” but you would also have to acknowledge that often it is merely acknowledging the way things are. To portray a Mexican maid, a black basketball player, or a white golfer is “perpetuating ethnic and racial stereotypes” but is also representing statistical realities. One often gets the feeling that the only scenario that would make the sensitivity police happy is if the media presented a show where the white people are gardeners, the blacks are CEO’s, asians are the basketball players and mexicans are golfers. Anything short of that is “perpetuating ethnic and racial stereotypes”. But then that show would be so unrealistic, so detached from reality that it would reduce its entertainment value. We begin to relate less.
It’s important to remember when reviewing commercials that it is in the best interest of the media and the sales organization not to insult the viewers, lest they lose valuable revenue. So any additional pressure, especially pressure on such subjective measures as “perpetuating ethnic and racial stereotypes” is likely to hurt minority progress more than help…as the quote from the NY Times aptly demonstrates.
by being overtly sensitive, the marginal cost goes up, which hurts the marginal minority employee…surely you agree to that, right?
No. I don’t accept your premises that (1) liberals are are being overly sensitive (fallacy: arguing from the conclusion) or (2) advertisers or media producers are avoiding casting people of color b/c they’re scared of what liberals will say. I’ve not seen more evidence of this than a short unsupported assertion in the Times article. In short, I still don’t agree that actors of color are harmed by liberals who call attention to examples of racism in the media–the opposite is true.
My main complaint was against the panda commercial, in particular the accent. Watch Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany’s and you’ll get a sense of what I am talking about. The South Asian commercial only really bothered me with the 7 kids comment, which was totally gratuitous. But the whole reason for calling attention to the commercials is undermined by the fact that Gupta wants a reaction to make more $$. My conclusion: he is a scuzzball.
Also, I don’t agree with your phrase the “sensitivity police”–I could use the phrase “fascist hatemongerers” but that would be counterproductive and inaccurate. Anyway, we’re not going to agree so let’s keep our powder dry for the next round
I agree, this is an area we will probably not resolve…so I’m fine with ‘agreeing to disagree’. Just a couple of minor points.
First, I did not use the word liberal…you did. I kept it at ’sensitivity police’, regardless of the political views.
Second, I didn’t go so far as to say “avoiding casting people of color b/c they’re scared of what liberals will say”…that language is too strong. I said “the marginal cost goes up, which hurts the marginal minority employee” (with a link provided defining ‘marginal’). In other words, by making hiring a minority more expensive (risk of offending the sensitivity police), the sensitivity police reduces the employment opportunities of (some - marginal) minorities…not eliminates, reduces. This is about as controversial as saying that making something more expensive leads to people buying less of it.
Third, your statement, The South Asian commercial only really bothered me with the 7 kids comment, which was totally gratuitous validates my point on two counts: one, it shows that the language - contrary to XP - really wasn’t at issue. Second, it shows that at most the commercial could be classified as offensive (though I’d still disagree), not racist.
Last, I believe that the same reasoning applied to the first commercial (Indian) could also be applied to the second (Pandas), showing that the sensitivity police also overreacted…and in the process, contributed to the reduction in minority job prospects and enrichment of the commercials producers (and…lets not forget, made the sensitivity police feel good about themselves, an important factor).
But let us agree to disagree.
Speak your mind
Comment Policy: First time comments are moderated. Please be patient.