One person is now a minority culture? So because one person says they think something is racist, that automatically makes it true?
Naomi Campbell is a psychobitch; nothing to do with her race.
I’m not going to sift through OMG! to see the ad in question, either.
If by one person you mean, Naomi Campbell, her mother, and the good people at Operation Black Vote, as that is as far as I can tell the minimum number of people who feel the ad is racist, then yes. However, I question your grasp of both the concept of one and of person, if that’s the case. And I still haven’t said that because someone says it, it must be true. But if a black person says something is racist and a white person says, no it is not, I raise my eyebrows, even if they’re not doom-filled.
Well, the marketing of the bar is a bit idiotic to start with, but she’s a natural reference for it. They have previously bypassed the usual superlatives to describe the bar as “pampered,” “indulged,” etc. There is a bizarre tie-in with Anatomicals bath products, and they have consistently given the line a “personality” of a pretentiously pampered woman.
It is abundantly clear which of Ms. Campbell’s attributes the ad makes reference to.
So not racist. But Campbell’s a total hasbeen.
Liza Minelli? Madonna?
I usually think of Aretha when someone says “diva”. Naomi just THINKS she’s a diva.
Based partly on the rest of the campaign and mostly on the fact that they selected Naomi Campbell as an example, I think they are going for the the word’s other meaning (which probably gets more use than its original meaning, these days.)
I can’t imagine Cadbury meant any offense at all. Not racist.
I can see how some could see it as racially tinged, but so what if it is. If they were thinking ‘chocolate diva Naomi should move over because there is a new chocolate diva in town’, then that seems like something Naomi should just shrug off. I do think they were going for that sentiment, but I could be wrong.
Those who keep calling her a has-been, I tend to disagree. She had an outrageously long lived and successful career. She is still in demand and can be seen on Dior runway to this day.
Those who are calling her a bitch, I tend to agree with that.
About as racially tinged as if they had diet peaches and cream chocolate and told Nicole Kidman that there was something even skinnier in town. Mentioning skin color isn’t racist.
I’m not disagreeing with you, Nzinga. That reads more combative than it, I think.
What if a black person says something is racist, and then other black people say no it’s not? Cause several of the people in this thread saying that the ad is not racist are black.
Then we have discussions? We figure out what makes some people think it’s racist and what makes other people think it’s not. I don’t know what you want me to say.
Frankly I’d have had no idea what it was talking about. The only famous Naomi I could think of was Judd til I saw Naomi Campbell’s picture and remembered vaguely “something about a cell phone”. But no, doesn’t strike me as racist. Maybe if it said “chocolate diva”, but even then on a scale where a mention of race is 1 and a 1930s Stepin Fetchit/Rufus Jones type movie is 5 I’d put it at maybe between 1 and 2.
I chose “other.” Yes, it’s “racist” in a way. It’s silly & racially charged, or at least color-charged; & Naomi has a right to be offended. (Not that I think she should win a tort; “Naomi” is a common enough name that she can’t really trademark it, and this falls under fair use.)
That said, it’s not really Racist in a “Get out the darkies” way. It’s sort of referencing (maybe even mocking) someone’s features in the same way that referencing Angelina Jolie’s lips, or Chuck Norris’s beard, or Conan O’Brien’s red hair would be. Or referencing someone’s ancestry in the way tweaking Natalie Portman’s Jewish ancestry would be. It’s rude, but it’s not really a lynching.
(Stupid ad, & Bliss is a pretty weak excuse for chocolate anyway.)
Clearly racist. There is a strong (if unstated) implication that Naomi is Black. Way to stereotype Black people, Cadbury.
No, but it’d be even more stupid than Naomi.
There aren’t enough :rolleyes:s for anyone who thinks this is racist.
The point* was to show that you were being racist yourself. You said that an entire group of people is unqualified to even know what racism is. Apparently all white people are incapable of empathy and learning from other people what racism is. When white people discuss racism, they need to shut up, and not tell black people what to think. When black people discuss racism, you need to listen to everyone.
Your comment is exactly the kind that ruins any chance at racial equality. Because you can’t get past it. Yeah, being the minority, it’s hard to forgive. But it is what you must do, rather than seeing white people as THEM, the enemy.
When come back, bring an actual argument that this is racist, and we can discuss it. Or don’t, and realize that your comment means you are classed as an offenderatti. And, whatever you do, stop this hostility for (white) people who disagree with you.
*Or, at least, it would have been if I’d said it. I was just ignoring you.
Hey Malcolm, I thought you were dead…
Seriously, you assume that everyone here is white. You are as ignorant as Naomi.
It just seems to me that the ad would work equally well if they’d named Eva Gabor - or some equally famously full of herself and hard to work with woman who happens to be white. It’s just that I can’t think of one who is timely enough for the reference. If this was three eyars ago when Eva had thrown her dog at someone or something, then it might be a better example. In many ways, the biggest problem with this ad is that even the cell phone incident was really too long ago.
I don’t think Naomi’s skin color has anything to do with the reference they are making.
I believe Zsa Zsa was the evil sister, not Eva.
This ad makes me want to sing a sad, sad song.
Right… but what if it’s just certain individuals and subcultural circles who “feel marginalized” by some reference or depiction, while other individuals and circles also covered by the reference* see it as positive or neutral?
I’m not saying that a majority culture, and members thereof, shouldn’t listen to a minority culture’s interpretations. Quite the contrary. Just that the conversation should be general, not one-way, and that some members of a minority culture may sometimes be mistaken in interpreting racism. False alarms do not advance the anti-oppression agenda.
- This is assuming that the chocolate=dark skin reference is fully intended.