EPTNaomi Cambell threatens sue over "racist" advert - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
| ||
|
green.at
Austria1459 Posts
On June 01 2011 20:52 Skilledblob wrote: haha nice, we have something similar in germany, it's basically some cream with choclate over it so you can take it in the hand and it's called negerkuss ( niggerkiss ) ![[image loading]](http://www.pulster.de/info/info_bilder/negerkuss.jpg) im sorry but, neger != nigger. its more like negro. just saying. racism is stupid from the very core of it. if i dont like a person its because they did something to deserve it, not because i dont like how they look. i like the morgan freeman approach: | ||
|
TheJizWiz
8 Posts
It's not, just an over sensitive person who hasn't been in the news recently so it was time she stirred up the pot about something completely stupid. Not that she will win in a million years anyways so w.e this thread is a prime example of what is wrong with NA society at the moment. People have paper thin skin and get offended at everything, and with the way courts work/ all the people terrified to open their mouths lest a coloured person hears then say "chocolate bar" this situation isn't even surprising. It's just sad. I meant for someone who has the opinion that it does to answer. Because i cant see any connection between theese two in the add except that both are divas. Also she is used because this is a british add and she is the most famous british diva. P.S.: I would like some bliss chocolate now. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On June 02 2011 03:47 Risen wrote: It's cute how you must have failed reading comprehension. He said nothing about the differing colors of the chocolate. He DID say something about how all the ads have dark chocolate and three of them have white women.  Especially since my initial post says nothing about the darkness of the chocolate, simply on how the chocolate as an object is used. When the chocolate and the female are equated, its a black model or a brown heavy color scheme. When the ad is showing the consumption of chocolate, it is white women in the images. But when an add equates women with the fruits and nuts of a chocolate bar, as opposed to the chocolate itself, it returns to the image of a white woman. The darkness of the chocolate means nothing except to you two | ||
|
Geordie
United Kingdom653 Posts
| ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
btw that morgan freeman clip is great. anyone got a link to the whole show? would be very interested to listen what he has to say outside of movies. such a great man. | ||
|
Cathasaigh
United States285 Posts
On June 02 2011 04:02 lorkac wrote: Especially since my initial post says nothing about the darkness of the chocolate, simply on how the chocolate as an object is used. When the chocolate and the female are equated, its a black model or a brown heavy color scheme. When the ad is showing the consumption of chocolate, it is white women in the images. But when an add equates women with the fruits and nuts of a chocolate bar, as opposed to the chocolate itself, it returns to the image of a white woman. The darkness of the chocolate means nothing except to you two On June 02 2011 03:06 lorkac wrote: The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar. Edit: And yes, it would have been just as racist to use a white chocolate bar and a white model. Seems like you brought up the color of the chocolate first to me. | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
| ||
|
j2choe
Canada243 Posts
Naomi Campbell's an idiot and it doesn't surprise me that the message of the advert is lost on her entirely. GL with the lawsuit...just try not to embarrass yourself any more than you already have. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On June 02 2011 03:54 scatmango2 wrote: So true. I can't even imagine what goes on in people's minds when they think the opposite of what you just typed. Their minds have been warped into a political correct slushy and honestly its beyond pathetic. Its not about political awareness--the goal is not censorship. Its about calling things out for what they are. It's about being honest and direct instead of passive. It's about drawing the line somewhere on the sand in order to properly define what things are and aren't. Its not about her winning Its not about her losing Its not about chocolates Its not about the money Its about deciding which morals should be supported by the government and which morals should not. Its about a future where things are so clear to us on whether what we're doing is right and wrong that we wouldn't need to have to file a lawsuit because any attempt at doing so would be retorted with "Oh, that's already been decided, he wins, you lose, that'd be $100 please " | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 02 2011 03:19 lorkac wrote: Pictures of ads where women and chocolates are seen as the same. http://files.coloribus.com/files/adsarchive/part_941/9418405/file/cadbury-melts-chocolate-me-me-me-small-60513.jpg http://media22.onsugar.com/files/2011/05/22/2/166/1668379/248135f068e94f15_cadburyad_610640a.preview/i/Naomi-Campbell-Considering-Legal-Action-After-Called-Chocolate-Cadbury-Ad-Campaign.jpg Pictures of ads where women eat chocolate http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3084/3551292367_7185324fbc.jpg http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1049/1297720856_233f3ef2d5.jpg Picture of an ad where a women is seen as the same as the fruits and nuts of a chocolate bar http://files.coloribus.com/files/adsarchive/part_546/5466555/file/chocolate-pieces-small-94200.jpg When women are chocolate, either the ad is brown or the model is brown. When women eat chocolate, they are white. When the woman is described as fruits and nuts and not chocolate, she is white. Yeah, pure speculation indeed. WTF, dude, you said: The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar. You said "If ... they would have also ....". You speculated what they WOULD HAVE done. Not that they did, but what they WOULD HAVE done, based on your own speculation. That's SPECULATION. I don't know wtf you are pulling all those ads and trying to get some racial overtones. This is some crazy stuff. I'm tempted to start a company, make chocolate covered pretzels, hire an ad agency to feature an African-American gymnast as my spokesmodel, and do it all in your honor. | ||
|
chickenhawk
Portugal339 Posts
| ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On June 02 2011 04:06 Cathasaigh wrote: Seems like you brought up the color of the chocolate first to me. I did bring up color. They brought up darkness. I don't equate something being "dark" as black, so I didn't think it was important. You three apparently believe how dark something is matters more than what color it is. Or did you just not know the difference between something having color and something having intensity? | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On June 02 2011 04:11 chickenhawk wrote: So if they got a white brand chocolate and it was a white blond girl in the ad, would it be racist? So stupidy... Yes. It would actually. But in pop culture, racism towards white women is called sexism while racism towards white men is called being a jerk. The trend is to believe that white is the norm so you normally don't label things as "racist towards white women" but instead say that it is sexist. | ||
|
Korinai
Canada413 Posts
| ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On June 02 2011 04:10 Kaitlin wrote: WTF, dude, you said: You said "If ... they would have also ....". You speculated what they WOULD HAVE done. Not that they did, but what they WOULD HAVE done, based on your own speculation. That's SPECULATION. I don't know wtf you are pulling all those ads and trying to get some racial overtones. This is some crazy stuff. I'm tempted to start a company, make chocolate covered pretzels, hire an ad agency to feature an African-American gymnast as my spokesmodel, and do it all in your honor. I'm sorry evidence supports my speculation  If you want, I can feel really bad about being right. | ||
|
Baarn
United States2702 Posts
| ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On June 02 2011 04:15 lorkac wrote: I'm sorry evidence supports my speculation If you want, I can feel really bad about being right. Or, since this case will be thrown out... you can feel bad being on the wrong side of the law D: I don't care about your "evidence". The court decision will determine the "racism" here, not some random anonymous internet poster. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On June 02 2011 04:14 Korinai wrote: Next thing you know, white people are going to be sued for not having an equal ratio of black and white socks. During the "jone's" era of america (50's-60's) people were getting fired for not "looking" right or not being "dressed" right. Socks were part of that. Matching socks specifically. Actually I think there's a euro bank that even has rules on underwear and stockings. So you don't really have to wait. Not only is it already happening, it's been happening for at least 50+ years. | ||
|
shizna
United Kingdom803 Posts
calling someone 'dark' because of the colour of their skin is no different to calling a kid 'fat' because he's overweight, or any other 'playground' prejudice. | ||
| ||
