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.

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 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.

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.

http://shop.vermontteddybear.com/mamacita.html

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.

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….

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.