"Racist" (or something) Superbowl commercial

[Naeo]

Awwwww fuck, that's MY conresswoman up there. Ah well, Sheila Jackson Lee is kinda retarded anyways.

Well, as a few people have said before, the racism test: make the couple and the person at the end any two different races and there's not so much of an issue.

And this thing there's no way to say without sounding like a douche, so let's just say it and hope it's not taken that way. Things like this wouldn't be an issue if people didn't keep trying to play the racism card. Yes, there are times when it's perfectly appropriate and times when it's almost necessary to play the race card, but a lot of times it seems like people being overly sensitive and raising a big fuss. Like this commercial. I see no racism in it and don't see a strong case for arguing that at all.

 

[game-lover]

I don't believe it was racist. Rather, it might have been a parody of racism.

I go with that because of the way the couple looked at each other like "Oh, shitaki!" and then ran off like: we need to get out of here. Anyone found out we injured a white woman, we're screwed."

But it was all funny and amusing. I say this as a black woman too.

 

[Jack Nettle]

In this ad, I see a woman getting angry at her husband/boyfriend and accidentally hitting another woman with a can. A racist (such as the congresswoman)would view these people with different skin colors in mind. In other words, they aren't seeing them as humans, but rather a type or categorized human.

I don't think that this ad is racist, I think people who view this ad as racist are racist.

 

[Meilow]

Of course that's not racist! White people can't play the race card.

/end sarcasm (with a little truth in it).

In all reality, if the commercial showed a white woman throwing a can at a black women, then our country would have lit up the press saying how racist this commercial was, and how demeaning it was.

Wonder why there's still racism? Because people keep bringing the shit up. If we dropped it, and stopped making biases or judgments on how racist something is, or pulling the race card when ever possible, or noting that "the first black person to blah blah blah," then it would fade out. We acknowledge the fact that someone is a different color and that's what keeps the racism alive.
Simple example: Barack Obama. First African American to hold office. He will be remembered as such, until we learn to look passed the bullshit we tag fellow man as, and recognize him as the 44th president.

Edit: The commercial isn't racist, but this is:

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

2) The "abuse" the wife perpetrates on the husband consists of a) kicking him under the table at a restaurant, b) pushing his face in a cream pie, and c) replacing a burger he was about to bite with a bar of soap. The first is hardly abuse, the second is a play on classic humor (pie in face... come on, this is loony toons stuff), and the third was just because he was hiding in the bathroom to eat his fried food. You could count the incomplete can to the head as an example of "real" abuse if pressed, but since it was intended for another purpose, that's a bit of a stretch. More convincing is the idea that she's being controlling and/or psychologically abusive because she's forcing him to eat healthily. That's wrong though, because it's obviously an exaggeration of the pressure to be fit and healthy wives put on their husbands intended for comedic effect. All of these are conventions of slapstick and comedic hyperbole. To condemn this is to condemn the Three Stooges for asserting that all men in groups are thugs.

To this, I only have to say one thing. The way I test if something is ok is by a reverse test. I.E. If I was in the restaurant, at their home, or for some reason in their bathroom and I saw the husband doing this to the wife, I have to ask myself if I'd be ok with that.

To even the soap one, I'd have to say no. Especially no to the throwing of the can. I think a lot of us would at least take the wife aside if we caught their husband doing this to them and ask if they are alright. If it looks fine on both sides, it's ok. If it's 'acceptable' on one side... no, it's not truly acceptable at all.

 

[Dags90]

They are? I dunno I'm just wondering.

It's a pretty common stereotype of African American women. It's part of the whole "strong black women" stereotype, though with less of the "noble poor" aspects and a more negative spin.

Here [http://www.singleblackmale.org/2010/10/25/7-stereotypes-of-the-strong-black-woman/] is a blog about it. I'm not surprised that people on this forum aren't aware of this stereotype. I'm pretty sure that was the Congresswoman's main concern.

 

[Chase Yojimbo]

Truthfully, I think the most racist people in the world are the ones fighting against it. I'm serious on this one. The people who fight against racism literally always try to find a reason why everything has a racist tone. With that ad, that wasn't racist at all, that was a woman preparing to throw a pepsi at her husbands head, he instead ducks and the woman behind him *who turns out to be a really cute caucasian blonde* gets hit. That isn't racist and I doubt very much it was intended to be racist (Though I suspect they wished it to look that way in the commercial, hence why the husband immidiately ushered his wife out of the park). That was for humor though, not to bash a race. But knowing the stupidity of non-racist racist people, Pepsi will no doubt get a law suit of some kind which will be a bad joke and forgotten.

 

[Meilow]

Truthfully, I think the most racist people in the world are the ones fighting against it.

You said it all with this one sentence. It's because people won't let the shit die. It seems the only way to fight it, is with more racism.

 

[Blood Countess]

I mostly see this as the congresswoman finding racism in everything and nothing more

I agree with lonewolf

Commerical isn't racist and the congresswoman is racist

 

[AceAngel]

I would say the Congresswoman is more of a racist herself then the commercial...just saying...the commercial was pretty benign by many standard and generically funny.

 

[Canid117]

Pepsi Max expert VI: Fall Camo unlocked.


Sorry I just had to.

 

[crudus]

Wouldn't we be having this exact conversation if the races were switched, totally different, or even the same? Someone would still be calling racist no matter what rather than just taking it for what it is: slapstick.

The Congresswoman actually didn't say that much about it being racist; instead, she said it "showed a demeaning role for African American women."

Ok, I love how people are shouting "It's racist" and they are just missing the entire point. First of all, that is a nice restaurant they went to and nice house they had. Clearly it isn't depicting some black family from "the ghetto"(which would be leaning toward racist), but rather an average middle class husband and wife which is independent of race. Secondly, jealous types do exist. That is also race independent. A full Pepsi can may have been over doing it but sure, we will go with it. Side note: what is more demeaning, throwing a Pepsi can at a spouse being "unfaithful" or getting hit in the head with a Pepsi can? If you really really want to cry "racist" then call it on the fact that the black man/couple didn't want to take responsibility for his/their actions (yes, that is a stereotype). If you are going to blow something out of proportion then be sure you are blowing the right thing out of proportion.

Although I am going to end this post with "A society where anyone can make jokes about anyone else and everyone laughs is a truly tolerant society" -Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw

 

[Comrade_Beric]

I sympathize with the congresswoman here. Whether people here know it or not, there is a common stereotype of black women being incredibly violent practically as a means of communication. The congresswoman, being herself both black and female, is naturally well aware of the stereotype and noticed (in my opinion rightly) that the commercial is only supposed to be funny because it shows the black woman conforming to that stereotype. There is absolutely no humor in the commercial that comes from any other source than that of watching the black woman act that way. The fact that the woman at the end was white has effectively no bearing on the commercial except as a contrast (with a smile) to the black woman's behavior, thus accentuating the absurdity of the behavior depicted by the black woman involved.

All of that said, freedom of speech trumps offensiveness, imo. Pepsi have a right to make an ad that depicts whatever they want. Of course, that also means that the congresswoman has the right to have whatever opinion she wants, and she happened to share hers to what was probably an empty chamber of congress while being broadcast on C-Span for almost no one to watch. As long as she doesn't try to introduce some kind of legislation to limit or punish pepsi for the ad, I think she is perfectly within reason to do everything she has done, and I don't think it was racism for her to call out what clearly looked like a commercial designed to pander to a negative stereotype.

 

[ultrachicken]

All I see is the double standard of women being allowed to hit men but not vice versa. No racism, really.

 

[BoredDragon]

For the most part, things are only racist if you want them to be. There are of coarse things that are racist like using racial slurs, that goes without saying. However, in this case, I think people are just getting upset over nothing. The commercial was funny and I enjoyed it, its the classic wife trying to keep their husband on their diet. If all the characters were white it wouldn't have made a difference.

 

[johnzaku]

Here in Southern Louisiana I've formulated a racism test:

-If it was meant with hate or meant to hurt/bash someone and their race then it's racist.
-If you look at a normal situation and -needlessly- see race being involved when it really isn't, then THAT'S racism.

Commercial = Not Racist
Congresswoman = Racist

I support this.

As do I

As for the original post, no it was in no way racist, and I must say you made pretty much the same arguments I made at my school this week.

It's always nice to see similar viewpoints =]

 

[Comrade_Beric]

Btw does anyone know if Congress has passed that bill for the relief for 9/11 first responders yet? If not, this congresswomen should be ashamed of herself.

Have you ever tried to buy a house? There's paperwork to sign and file, people to see, money has to change hands, meetings held, tax assessments, etc. The process takes time, and law making is surprisingly similar. Now, if you were buying a house, do you think it would be completely inappropriate for you to do anything else in that time? No, of course not. The process isn't going to go any faster by you trying to will the bank into processing the information faster, so it's not like you shouldn't go to work or see a movie during that time. Talking like no congressperson should ever do anything other than pass a bill you think is important is more than a little unfair. I appreciate that she's even in the building, many congresspeople don't even bother to show up for work more often than not. I'm not going to begrudge her using a minute when the chamber is fairly empty (you notice that the C-Span camera never ever sweeps across the chamber anymore so you don't know how many people the congressperson is actually talking to) to tell people what her opinion is about a commercial she saw as kind of offensive. When she starts trying to introduce a bill that does something about it (and thus actually slows down the process you so desperately want to go faster) then you'll have a perfectly valid reason to slam her.

 

[marginal]

Here in Southern Louisiana I've formulated a racism test:

-If it was meant with hate or meant to hurt/bash someone and their race then it's racist.
-If you look at a normal situation and -needlessly- see race being involved when it really isn't, then THAT'S racism.

Commercial = Not Racist
Congresswoman = Racist

I've been saying the same thing for years. People often see racism when it isn't there (as well as other forms of prejudice) because they're looking for it. Anyone who isn't racist won't look at it that way because the thought never enters their mind.

 

[BoredDragon]

Btw does anyone know if Congress has passed that bill for the relief for 9/11 first responders yet? If not, this congresswomen should be ashamed of herself.

I'm not going to begrudge her using a minute when the chamber is fairly empty (you notice that the C-Span camera never ever sweeps across the chamber anymore so you don't know how many people the congressperson is actually talking to) to tell people what her opinion is about a commercial she saw as kind of offensive. When she starts trying to introduce a bill that does something about it then you'll have a perfectly valid reason to slam her.

That's a good point, I shall edit my comment and take that ending part off. btw the part that I have quoted here was the only thing you needed to say. I don't need a lecture on Political Science, I have my professors for that.

 

[The Stonker]

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with this commercial.
Why?
Because I don't focus on stereotypes, if a black person is a douchebag, then I can't stand him, this applies to all races and sexualities.