Rotating Header Image


Change the terms of this SONY advertising campaign to “black” or “brown,” then what? Would it even be an issue? Would anyone care? Would it, perchance, even then be a matter of pride and not receive the “racist” tag?


From digg, this news, such as it is. In my view, it’s news more about self-effacement by SONY than anything else, if not racism by SONY in it’s eagerness to defame and derogate “white.” And “white” people, specifically.

Here, below, is a photograph of the billboard image, from a site that seems set on the “it’s racist” meme; however, there’s no plausible explanation as to why that’s the conclusion on that site, other than as to the “white” reference (‘so it MUST be “racist”‘) — the site and comments there (as also the decision by SONY) are good examples of the ridiculousness of this “white-equals-racism” meme and suggest proof that multicultural indoctrination results in a lot of people unable to think past the required, anticipated test-response (that imagery, symbolism, references to “white” people represents the definition of what it is to be “racists,” while masking the reality that that’s a racist paradigm right there: declaring synonymy between “white” people and the derogatory term of “racist” and act of “racism”).


To the contrary, something worthwhile (about which, I agree) found among the comments on digg associated with this story:

Tim Buckly of Ctrl-Alt-Del said this in his news post about it

“Here’s a different take on my view.

“No one is offended that the billboard suggests a precursor to violence. No one is offended that it’s two women involved in violence. If it had been two white women, one in a white suit, one in a black suit, nobody would say a thing.

“Furthermore, nobody has said word one about the version of the ad where the black woman is dominating the white woman. And I’m willing to bet that if that image had been on the billboard instead, nobody would have said a thing. At least not publicly.

“So ask yourself, honestly, why it’s offensive to you. Because the billboard doesn’t depict slavery. Not in the slightest. If the black woman was picking cotton, and the white woman was standing over her with a whip, then hell yes it would be offensive. But it’s just two people squaring off, and one of them has the upper hand. So why does it matter to you which one that is?

“Because if we really want to reach the level of equality in our society that we all say we do, we need to stop dwelling on the past. Slavery is abolished. Has been for a good long time. Not a single one of us Americans owned slaves, or was a slave. It was a horrible period in time, but it’s over. Being oversensitive about things like this billboard is what’s keeping this racial tension alive. If you ask yourself honestly, you may find that you don’t actually think the billboard is offensive, but that you’ve just been taught it’s offensive.

“Stop making race a big deal, and race stops being a big deal.

“(PS: Kudos to whoever designed the ad campaign for accomplishing exactly what was intended, to spark discussion and bring attention to Sony and the product).”

Related: interesting survey results…

Study: Latinos bring view of blacks
— and, a very negative view it is that they bring with them to the United States (and which survey results reflect my own experiences with and opinions about both Hispanics and Blacks, AND with and by my fellow “white” people — in fact, in my experience, we “white” people are expected to be “racist” if not anticipated to be so by some black people [however, that is a disappearing expectation recently, which is good], but also in my experience, Hispanics are overtly focused on issues of race, but in their case, they perceive their own ethnicity as being a unique race and one of superiority compared with others and I find that blacks AND we white folks are the recipient of their misguided ethnic supremacy, which is often deemed to be their “racism” in regards to whites):

“What surprised us most was the high level of negative stereotypes on the part of Latino immigrants,” said Paula McClain, a professor of political science at Duke University and the study’s lead author. “We were also, I guess, pleasantly surprised at the low level of stereotypes of blacks held by whites in Durham (North Carolina). Less than 10 percent of our sample of whites held negative stereotypes of blacks. And that blacks were more tolerant of Latino immigrants than Latino immigrants were of blacks.”

The survey asked such questions as whether members of one group saw the others as hardworking, trustworthy or easy to get along with.

A majority of Latino immigrants, 58.9 percent, said few or almost no blacks are hardworking. Nearly one-third said few if any blacks are easy to get along with. And nearly 57 percent said few if any blacks could be trusted.

Only one-third of blacks, on the other hand, said they distrusted Latino immigrants; 42.8 percent said most or nearly all Latinos are easy to get along with; and 72 percent characterized them as hard-working.

…Latinos seemed unlikely to have absorbed the attitudes from whites, the researchers said, mostly because whites were more positive toward blacks. Only 9.3 percent of whites said few blacks work hard, only 8.4 percent said few or no blacks are hard to get along with and only 9.6 percent said few if any blacks can be trusted.

More than three-quarters, 78 percent, of Latinos said they have more in common with whites than blacks. But whites said they have more in common with blacks — 45.9 percent, as opposed to 22.2 percent saying they have more in common with Latinos.

Blacks were split on whether they have more in common with Latinos or whites — 49.6 percent and 45.5 percent, respectively.

C O M M E N T S : now closed