Ever find yourself in an awkward situation with those noisy negroes that just won't shut up. You've tried watermelon waving, introducing new dance moves and even hypoglycemic coma inducing, sugar thickened, "red" flavored Cool-aid. Nothing seems to work! Well KFC has the deep fried solution for all your rambunctious crowd dampening needs. See the B.S. above.
((UPDATE))
Using the word "Negroes" was just me joking around. But it is a term known the world around, it's even made an appearance on the 2010 US census again. Stereotypes exist the world over. It's just like the stereotype of black people and fried chicken in the US and much more harmful stereotypes.
I know first hand that the blacks and chicken stereotype is not unique to America. It may be worse here and African American may have battled the assumptions longer, but it's not a unique problem.
This entire spot is based on a bevy of stereotypes like; people of color are loud, have chicken loving predispositions, people of color partying all the time, Black people's hilarity is misplaced (even while celebrating at a game), etc.
As well as stereotypes of all white people being awkward around people of color, white people are sticks in the mud and can't enjoy themselves, white people being generally the heroic and magnanimous ones in situations, white people are clever, white people are always the problem solvers, white people know how to calm down a crowd of "West Indians," etc. I could go on for days. Did you catch those stereotypes?
The commercial holds fast to manifold stereotypical assumptions toward black people and the white people in this commercial. It relies entirely upon this type of thinking as its core concept.
UPDATE:
The Australian Business w/t Wall Street Journal Quotes us in this article; KFC's cricket ad featuring West Indians slammed as racist .
UPDATE:
Perth Now, KFC Australia pulls 'racist' ad after US anger"KFC Australia yesterday acknowledged that the ad could be perceived as racist. It said the ad had been "misinterpreted by a segment of people in the US" in a statement released this morning.""could be??"
"It is a light-hearted reference to the West Indian cricket team," KFC said.UPDATE:
News.Com.AU, KFC sorry for 'racist ad'
"KENTUCKY Fried Chicken's head office in the US has apologised for "any misinterpretation" caused by a controversial Australian cricket advertisement as furious debate raged in local media about whether it was racist.
The ad was picked up by the US media, including the New York Daily News and Baltimore Sun, and drew heated debate, with some Americans accusing Australians of being racist because it perpetuates a stereotype that African Americans eat a lot of fried chicken."https://sites.google.com/site/mayuradocs/PinIt.png
25 comments:
Shut up!
My Flash isn't loading this...I'm happy though. It's Christmas Eve...I'm trying not to go home thinking that humans are dumb.
ET, you got some chicken with that?
Bri you didn't miss a thing. You're right, don't go home thinking that humans are dumb.
turn away from this post. it's sad.
nice post. thanks.
Wow. Seriously? Context is an amazing thing. The outcry over this is one of the many moments that I'm ashamed of my country. Have you ever heard of context? The ad was run when Australia was playing against the West Indies team. The "black people love fried chicken" stereotype IS unique to America, go to Australia, EVERYONE loves fried chicken there.
Here's a stereotype that is pretty global. "Americans are a bunch of ignorant, judgmental pricks that haven't realized that the universe doesn't revolve around their country". Maybe you should stop perpetuating that one.
Hey! Welcome back Anon,
I see your point about context. But as an American, how can you judge the sentiment of an entire race of people on the continent of Australia. Where is your contextual basis coming from? It is a common tendency of some arrogant people to assume they can actually speak for people they have little or no affiliation with or virtually no knowledge of.
I noticed you have once again ignored the "racist" assumptions of "white" superiority, braininess, supreme problem solver and always annoyed by blacks.
And in case you haven't noticed everything on the internet is "universal" these days and we simply have to be more aware of people everywhere. I think that's going to be good for us all.
Now people like me and you can become pen pals no matter where you are.
Peace & Love homey, all the best to ya!
I'm a different Anonymous than the first, actually. I forgot to sign my comment.
"But as an American, how can you judge the sentiment of an entire race of people on the continent of Australia. Where is your contextual basis coming from? It is a common tendency of some arrogant people to assume they can actually speak for people they have little or no affiliation with or virtually no knowledge of."
My contextual basis is thus: The ad was run, in Australia, as part of a series of ads during cricket season, at a time when Australia was playing against the team from the West Indies. All of the Australians and Kiwis that I know, and that have commented on the ad, don't find it racist in the slightest, and only thought of the "fried chicken" stereotype after being reminded of it by Americans. Oh, and by the way, Australians are not "a race of people". They're a nation of people.
This statement is pretty funny, too:
"And in case you haven't noticed everything on the internet is "universal" these days and we simply have to be more aware of people everywhere."
So, by "universal", you mean that everything should be careful not to offend Americans, who are, in general, ignorant of the fact that our cultural sensitivities are not global?
I'm more offended at the liberals who have denounced the ad as racist, and in the same sentence, referred to the black actors in the commercial as "African-Americans".
I've read the rest of your blog, and it's obviously intelligent, and enjoyable to read. However, I find the finger-wagging surrounding this ad to be EXTREMELY ignorant and myopic. I've found, in my time on this planet earth, that continually pointing at things and crying "that's RACIST!" does nothing to soothe racial tension, quite the opposite, actually.
As far as your claims of playing on the idea of "white superiority", that's an odd term to use for what you referred to as "... stereotypes of all white people being awkward around people of color, white people are sticks in the mud and can't enjoy themselves, white people being generally the heroic and magnanimous ones in situations, white people are clever, white people are always the problem solvers, white people know how to calm down a crowd of "West Indians," etc."
How does a stereotype of white people being "sticks in the mud", or "awkward around people of color" equate to superior?
Thanks Eric,
I now better understand why you don't see my point.
By "race of people" I meant all blacks of African decent in Australia. No one imagines that Australians are a "race" is which is just a social precept in and of itself. I don't know how you made such an erroneous leap.
By universal I meant the world is now able to watch. We all have to be a bit more careful. So that means we have to be more careful about offending HUMAN BEINGS everywhere. It's a simple premise. Perhaps overly simplified, but now more necessary than ever.
PLease note; You see it perfectly fine that you are offended. But for some reason have a problem with others taking offense. I would call this view ignorant and myopic.
That is a common tendency among the American majority to assume that people of color pointing out racism perpetrated against themselves as not helping. Why?
If some one perpetrates a wrong against you; say punching you in the face, would you not defend yourself or point it out or report it to the cops or maybe even "cry" as you so dismissively put it. Then, would you be wrong?
Which action would you deem most appropriate?
MLK pointed out racism, it helped.
Ghandi pointed out racism, it helped.
Mandela pointed out racism, it helped.
All the while there were people like you, who called what they were doing "CRYING 'that's RACIST" and said it wouldn't help.
I beg to differ sir. Pointing out racism does and has been proven to help.
You seem to be a caring & very intelligent person, what have you done to help the cause of racism?
Or is this just a convenient moment to tell black people that racism is all their fault and they're not helping by pointing out that it exist.
Wow! I wanted to jump in here and say a few words, but it looks like it has all been taken care of. One thing I will say is, I hate when people talk trash and use the title anonymous. Stand by your words or don't spill them.
Hahahaha, you really jumped the shark in your last comment, Craig.
Before this goes too far, we're going to clear up a couple of things.
#1 When I used the term "cry" I used in the sense of "exclaim". Not as an insult to accuse you of whining, nor to dismiss you. I'm pretty obviously not dismissing you, I'm having a conversation with you.
#2 I've never once told a black person, or a person of any color that racism is their fault.
#3 You aren't MLK, Ghandi, or Mandela. You're cool and all, but seriously? You want to compare blogging about a fast food ad to walking to the ocean to make salt, organizing the Montgomery bus boycott, or fighting apartheid?
In order for this argument to make sense, we have to define a couple of words. The most important of which is "racism".
Racism, to me at least, implies motivation by hate, and superiority. There is a difference between something being racist, something being ignorant, and something playing with stereotypes.
"I am better than you, because I'm white and you're black" is a racist statement.
"Black people can dance" is not necessarily a racist statement.
It depends on the motivation.
Richard Pryor played with stereotypes constantly in his act, and I would NEVER refer to him, or those statements as racist, because they were never motivated by hate. He was a very conscious, and caring individual.
I don't think the ad is racist, and neither do a lot of other people. I don't think it was motivated by hate (why would someone trying to sell a product project hate to some of the people that it may possibly sell that product to?). I DO think that it played on a stereotype, but not the one you accuse it of.
From what I can tell, it was playing with the stereotype of sports fans.
This is a comment from an Aussie reader of the Huffington Post:
"...If the English cricket team were visiting Australia this year it's highly likely the predominantly black West Indian fans would be replaced by predominantly white English fans...."
And I agree.
I didn't tell you you shouldn't point out racism, I told you that you shouldn't be so quick to slap the "That's racist!" label on things that aren't. Because doing so does more harm than good.
Since you're fond of taking the argument to extremes, I'll put it this way. Calling something racist, that isn't, is much like a woman crying rape, when she wasn't. It's hurtful to the people that were honestly harmed. It leads others to believe that that statement is a lie. It's the little boy that cried "Wolf!".
So please don't throw statements like this:
"All the while there were people like you, who called what they were doing "CRYING 'that's RACIST" and said it wouldn't help."
at me, just because I have an opinion that differs with yours.
Let me ask you this, were you honestly hurt by the ad? Again, there is a difference between being hurt, and being offended. Being hurt is a natural, human reaction. Being offended is a decision, people DECIDE to be offended. Most of the time, that decision is a waste of energy. If you were HURT, then I sympathize and apologize. In this day and age, no one should be hurt because of their lineage, everyone should be able to be proud of who they are.
But I don't think you were hurt, again, if I'm wrong I apologize. I think you decided to be offended, mostly to have something to blog about. There's nothing inherently wrong about that in and of itself. We all need fuel for our voice, I just think your judgment was wrong.
Okay racism is the oppression of a race by the dominant race. Bigotry is motivated by hate. Racism is contributing to the continual oppression of a people. This ad is racist because it does contribute to the oppression of black people by perpetuating the stereotype that black people love chicken and when they get annoying to a white person all he needs to do is whip out some chicken to soothe the savages. Thus making the white man smarter and the dominator of than these savages just like Tarzan and so many other depictions on the tube. It really is deeper than you care to acknowledge. I understand if you can't see it, why would you? However, I want you to understand that many of us do see it.
The fact that this blog continually acknowledges the beauty in black art, the racism in advertising, and the differences in how we delivered messages does equate to doing what Martin, Ghandi & Mandela did. It's about having the courage to point to what is beautiful, incredible, outrageous, uncomfortable, and awe-inspiring in us and in others for the betterment of society. It has to happen in small, continual steps or else we stop walking to a better world.
Thanks for taking your anonymous cloak off and participating in this discussion. We may not agree, but we must keep talking to expand our worldview.
Eric I now realize we are talking about two different things.
You don't know what racism is.
Racism is based on power.
Not anger hate and dislike. Those small things are prejudice, bigotry and the like.
The racism I speak of is large and looming systemic and industrialized oppression of peoples wills thoughts actions and their very lives. It is about power, dominance and control.
I can clearly see after your last comment your are too blinded by the privileges and the pressure of it to understand just how pervasive racism is. Or to see what it really is. Your ignorance makes a warm bed for it to lay. Your distrust of others striking out against it only help to strengthen it.
This is why you base your discussion on petty hurts, likes and dislikes. You cannot see the forest for the trees my good man. The smallest slight is a brick in the wall of oppression carried out by the hapless and the witless. While the true benefactors of racism score the same prizes and amass the same wealth they have for centuries.
As I asked before but you seem to fearfully avoid the question;
What have you personally done to abate racism and its fester?
You guys are both losing the plot left and right here.
Your debate skills are revolving around insults and assumptions. I don't know what racism is? I'm "blinded by privilege"? Come on. You can do better than that.
I don't know what racism is? I know perfectly well what it is. It has a definition. That's nice, isn't it?
"Racism is based on power."
No. Racism is based on race. What you're talking about is classism. Quite often they go hand in hand, but they are indeed two different things.
"Okay racism is the oppression of a race by the dominant race."
Again, no, it's not. Anyone, of any race, creed, or color, can be a racist. Again, you're referring to classism.
Craig, we may be talking about two different things, but that's only because your argument keeps veering off into territory that doesn't make sense. Personally, I'm talking about the KFC commercial in Australia, whether or not it's racist (it isn't), and why it's harmful to get up in arms and claim that it is.
Let me state this clearly, because it got ignored before. There was no racial motivation in the ad. Whatsoever. Not at all, not one bit. You, and the others that have slammed it, took it out of context, and invented racism where there wasn't any.
Let's suppose for a second that racism was measurable. That it had mass. If there were 32,000 tons of racism in the world the day before this incident, then after, there would be 32,001 now. See how that works? You created it. It wasn't there before. Do you see why that's a bad thing? And you did it by judging one culture by another's standards. That's ignorant. It's on par with claiming an Englishman is a homophobe because he referred to his cigarette as a fag. It's ignorant, and quite frankly, it pisses me off. It also pisses off quite a few other people, like me, that are smart, worldly, and caring. Creating racism where it doesn't exist is a HORRIBLE tactic, because it desensitizes people to the claim being made. And it's sad that you don't see that....
to be continued...
...I'll put it this way. I'm smart enough, and experienced enough to know that I, as a paleface, can't ever understand what it is like to live with dark skin. I know that. Just like I know that I will never be able to understand what it is like to be a woman. In order to be compassionate, and in order to be ABLE to correctly speak out, and take action against things that are harming people of color, or women, or disabled persons, or anyone else that is in a different situation than I am in, I need to be informed. And I need to trust that the information that I'm getting is as free of bullshit as possible. This situation, my friend, is bullshit. It's really screwing up the signal to noise ratio. You misinterpreted the ad, got called out on it, and in your defense, started insulting me, as well as accusing me of all sorts of things that are not only untrue, but aren't even relevant to this situation. Then, on top of everything, you had the balls to compare yourself to not just one, but THREE men who have fought more, risked more, and arguably lost more than any human being should ever have to.
Again, that's bullshit. Dr. King never compared himself to Ghandi, because Dr. King knew damned well how utterly pretentious that would be.
I never answered your question for three reasons. The first is that it's irrelevant to the conversation. The second is that your question is a petty and childish tactic. The third is that you really don't want to play the qualification game with me. Remember that you don't know who I am, where I come from, or what I do. I'll answer it this way though, since you insist on insisting: I do what I do, I live my life, I create what I create, I fight what I fight, and I try to remain as informed, compassionate, and credible as possible. Along the ride, I've had guns pulled on me, been hit with a moving vehicle, seen my friends get sent to prison, lost everything I had, gotten it back and lost it again, met a lot of amazing people, been to a lot of amazing places, and hopefully, made a difference here and there. But I wouldn't ever presume to know how much. Oh yeah, and when I was 16 I wrote a nine-page article on Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, and the Black Panther Party. I don't really know if that really DID anything to fight racism, but it was pretty cool.
I do my best, man. I do my best...
..still to be continued...
...Now that the conversation has steered into broader territory than just the KFC ad, I think it should be addressed that what both you and Jewelry Rockstar are referring to as racism is not JUST racism, it's classism. It's really important to know the difference between the two. Poor people are oppressed. Not just black people, or people of color, but poor people. Oppression via class is rampant, and worldwide, and one of the most damaging things about human society. And it's always been that way. Even in the days of American slavery, there were black men, mostly dignitaries and royalty from Africa, as well as from the newly formed Carribean countries (which, ironically enough, were formed by slave revolts) working hand in hand
with the white, landowning, male powers in this nation, while meanwhile there were caucasian indentured servants from Europe working here, and being taken advantage of by the people in power as well. The people in power stomp on the little guy, that's how it is. It isn't race-specific. Racism is quite often used to divide people, and to oppress them, because the people in power are well aware that if all the poor people ever realized that they're all being mistreated, that they're all in the same boat, black, white, brown, red and yellow, that they may very well also realize what a significant portion of the population they are, and how powerful they could be if they stood together. I try to point that out as often as possible, because I think that it's empowering.
And just to reiterate, you can't compare this blog to the actions of Mandela, Ghandi, and Dr. King. That is the most pretentious statement I've ever heard. Blogging doesn't require that kind of courage. Like I said, the blog is good, but that comparison is just plain out of line.
You know what really takes courage? Admitting you're wrong.
Hi, I'm going to need you to take the chip off your shoulder and join us in the 21st century.
This commercial is obviously about an Australian fan (who happens to be white) getting crappy seats in the middle of the opposing team (who happen to be from a country that has a higher melanin content in their skins), and rather than being loathed by the people around him he befriends them in the spirit of the game and good food. He offers them some tasty food that "everyone likes", to keep the spirit of the game light. It doesn't matter who wins or loses, it just matters that you don't pulverize each other. That's the moral of the story.
Now me, I hate fried food, and would politely turn him down, but would think, "wow, what a nice lad, bringing us food."
No one is being racist. They're just eating some chicken and watching their favorite sport together.
This is why wars are started, because people make something out of nothing.
Eric you should check out this blog: http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com
Eric & Trick don't forget these KFC spots:
http://kissmyblackads.blogspot.com/2010/01/kfc-for-eric-trick.html
Seriously though.
The ad in question was a TELEVISION ad shown in AUSTRALIA as part of KFC's sponsorship of the cricket television coverage this year here in Australia.
The ad was made for an Aussie TV audience watching cricket, in other words. It was never meant to be seen by anyone other than the cricket audience in Australia. Most of them probably didn't even notice it (the ad that is, never mind any perceived racism). I understand the ads were also on kfc.com.au, where the audience was likely a few dozen kids who like cricket and junk food. Also, people who scour the media footprint of large corporations, looking for anything at all that can be beaten up into a controversy that helps them push their bandwagon.
As an Aussie, I had only the vaguest notion that some Americans consider chicken to be a racist food. There was that golf dude that time, and maybe a few references from Hollywood. The net effect of these references is that there are maybe a couple hundred Aussies troubled by the question of what to do if an American of African descent should ever ask us where to get some good fried chicken. Are we racists if we let them know about the three closest fried chicken joints? Or are we racist for refusing to help the black man? It's an issue that simply doesn't register down here, and doesn't make any sense to us either. Do they have to shut down firied chicken shops over there if a black family moves in within a certain radius? I mean... shit... how the hell does fried chicken work over there if it's such a touchy issue?
Furthermore, the ad features West Indian cricket fans. The West Indian team is composed entirely of black players, as are the vast majority of their fans, and indeed the populations of the islands they represent. The "Windies" have always been popular with the Australian public because of their talent for the game and the flair with which they play it, as well as their seemingly laid-back attitude which we identify very well with. Their fans are famous for the same reasons. More to the point, they all come from the Carribean, not the US.
The KFC ad is emphatically not racist, neither is it racist to assume it is (that's just cultural insensitivity). What comes close to racism is lumping all black people with an African background under the same banner, assuming that an obscure cultural stereotype applies to all of them, worldwide.
"Are we racists if we let them know about the three closest fried chicken joints?"
No.
"Or are we racist for refusing to help the black man?"
Nope.
"Do they have to shut down firied chicken shops over there if a black family moves in within a certain radius?"
Don't be silly.
Now here's a question for you: if the fans in the ad were predominantly white, do you think the agency would have come up with the same concept?
No one here knows the answer. And it makes me (and perhaps Craig and others here) wonder just how did the agency come up with this idea to shut loudmouthed black people up with fried chicken?
Advertising creatives don't live in a vaccum; they absorb all types of culture from all over the world via books, films and the Internet in order to get their ideas.
So it wouldn't surprise me that the creatives behind this spot were aware of the stereotypical fried chicken reference and thought it would be a good idea to apply to a KFC ad.
That's just my assumption but I am basing it on the fact that it's just seems interesting that this ad wasn't EVER done for (predominantly) non-black cricket fans in mind, e.g., England, Pakistan, New Zealand...
Draw your own conclusions.
Seriously.
""Do they have to shut down firied chicken shops over there if a black family moves in within a certain radius?"
"Don't be silly.""
It's a serious question, posed in a slightly humorous way.
If an ad can be pulled off air in Australia because of a stereotype that only exists in the US, because it shows West Indians enjoying fried chicken, then I can't imagine how fried chicken vendors can operate in US neighbourhoods with black people in them. Surely it's racist to open a fried chicken joint in a mainly black neighbourhood?
Let me put it another way - lets say an African American was on vacation in Austrlia, and wound up at my place for dinner one night. I decide to cook my specialty which just happens (for the sake of this argument) to be a deliciously spicy fried chicken dish. And it's good, far better than that greasy KFC rubbish. Am I racist for serving this dish, despite my being totally unaware of the stereotype? Personally, I wouldn't take it kindly if I invited someone into my house, cooked them a meal, and then got called racist for doing so. So I'd like to know the rules. It probably won't ever happen, but then what chance a crappy Aussie ad shown during the cricket ever being seen in the US and considered racist?
"Now here's a question for you: if the fans in the ad were predominantly white..."
Of course they would have. They have done. It's a very common advertising technique, at least here in Australia. But that isn't the point.
The point is that the rest of the world doesn't have this "blacks love fried chicken" thing and we don't understand where it comes from or how it is offensive. For the rest of the world, fried chicken is a cheap, cholesterol-boosting feed regardless of race or background.
"Advertising creatives don't live in a vaccum; they absorb all types of culture from all over the world via books, films and the Internet in order to get their ideas."
You have access to the same resources, yet insist that people all around the world should conform to rules made in the US, rules they are often unaware of and which contradict their own culture. Use those resources and you'll understand a little better why we all get so pissed off when Americans start telling us how to live our lives.
"So it wouldn't surprise me that the creatives behind this spot were aware of the stereotypical fried chicken reference and thought it would be a good idea to apply to a KFC ad."
From this side of the world, that simply doesn't make sense. The West Indian team, currently touring Oz, is made up of black players. Always has been, with a couple of exceptions. Most of their supporters are black, as are most of the people who live on the islands that make up the West Indies. Probably a few of them are African-Americans, but the vast majority are African-Carribeans, living on Carribean islands. They are a very popular team in the world of cricket and Australians identify very much with their perceived laid-back lifestyles. It is not surprising that advertisers in Australia take advantage of this. It is especially not surprising that KFC, a major sponsor of cricket in both Australia and the West Indies, would do so. When using the West Indian theme in the ad, What food did you suppose a fried chicken outlet was going to use?
"Draw your own conclusions."
I always do. I try to get as much information about a subject as I can before I reach my conclusions, and then base my conclusions on the most likely scenario that the evidence suggests. I will also change my conclusions should contrary facts come to light. I trust that you do the same.
"Now here's a question for you: if the fans in the ad were predominantly white..."
Of course they would have. They have done.
Really, Arthur Bastard? They've used fried chicken in an ad to shut white people up?
Shut up! I don't believe you, dude Please send a link, YouTube, ads of the world, I don't care.
Then, upon viewing the ad in question, I will happily admit I am 100% wrong.
Thanks.
http://kfc.com.au
Several of the "Cricket Survival Guide" ads are shown, including several where our hero Mick gives KFC to people to get them to do things / stop doing things at the cricket. It's the exact same concept, if you can look past the colour of someones skin.
Now, I'm still wondering exactly how fried chicken came to be racist in the US and, more to the point, why Australians need to adopt this absurd idea as well.
Post a Comment