Those donuts are racist!

[Bezombia]

*doesn't put black people in ads*

RACIST!

*puts black people in ads*

RACIST!

Where's the black person in this ad?

If a person is black, they are a black person

"black" doesn't always mean african. The person in the ad was obviously black in color, even if not in race.

[Zottistan]

How about we stop with the "herpaderp Hippo" shit and actually deal with the topic.

I didn't realize charcoal-colored people were a race. I see nothing wrong with this ad.

[The Grey Wolf]

How about we stop with the "herpaderp Hippo" shit and actually deal with the topic.

I didn't realize charcoal-colored people were a race. I see nothing wrong with this ad.

^ This.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

How about we stop with the "herpaderp Hippo" shit and actually deal with the topic.

I didn't realize charcoal-colored people were a race. I see nothing wrong with this ad.

^ This.

What would it take, out of curiosity, for either of you to actually see an advertisement as racist?

[Abatael]

This isn't a racist ad. The Human Rights Watch is so ineffective and impotent, they have to now complain about imagined racism, instead of, you know, actually caring about their so-called human rights.

[The Independent Isle of Wight]

That's maybe stretching the definition of exaggerated features a bit.
Strange when you put it into the context of all the hideous things advertisers do when they want to target one or the other of the two big genders.

But if it made people double take, and nothing more, then that would be enough for dunkin doughnuts to pull it. Wouldn't it?
Swing and a miss from an advertising company, who cares.

[Abatael]

^ This.

What would it take, out of curiosity, for either of you to actually see an advertisement as racist?

Hmm, maybe. . . just maybe, racism. I know, it's a novel idea, to call something what it actually is. Like, stereotyping Orientals all as "Chingaling" or what have you.

[Esternial]

This isn't a racist ad, and it's being called racist by a group of morons, the "Human Rights Watch." They are so ineffective and impotent, they have to now bitch about imagined racism, instead of, you know, actually caring about their so-called human rights.

Aye, it's rather strange that a Human Rights movement would comment on this.

Then again, given the history, it's understandable that people might consider this racist.

For those of you who can still remember such a time, black folks were depicted by white people in the past. They made their faces pitch black and gave them red lips. It was rather...stereotypical.

Nobody enjoys being highlighted by such stereotypes.

Although, I can also understand why there are those that don't see anything wrong with it.

[New Frenco Empire]

Where's the black person in this ad?

If a person is black, they are a black person

"black" doesn't always mean african. The person in the ad was obviously black in color, even if not in race.

So, apparently, when someone says "black person" to you, you don't think of it as it's painfully obvious meaning of African-descent, but as literal people in black? Like, as in white people doing blackface counts?

I've seen it all.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

What would it take, out of curiosity, for either of you to actually see an advertisement as racist?

Hmm, maybe. . . just maybe, racism.

Talk about a non-answer.

I know, it's a novel idea, to call something what it actually is.

Try to minimize one-handed writing if you can.

Like, stereotyping Orientals all as "Chingaling" or what have you.

Now there's some sort of actual answer. Way to go.

Frankly, I'll be willing to admit that I don't think any racist imagery was intended here, I think it's more just an issue of ignorance.

[Zottistan]

^ This.

What would it take, out of curiosity, for either of you to actually see an advertisement as racist?

Something clearly insulting or offensive to a race. As I said, charcoal isn't a race.

[Liriena]

Two things:

1. The intent of the company might not have been to create something reminiscent of the blackface make up, and I personally do not find myself particularly offended by it, but I can see how it could offend many people, and the company did well in taking it down. It could have hurt their sales, not necessarily in Thailand, but certainly in the United States.
2. Hippo, shame on you for using this as an excuse to bash American liberals. Really, your obsession with deprecating your political opponents is as tragicomic. This thread is an insult to the intelligence of your fellow users, and I personally believe you should apologize.

I'm disgusted by the way Americans use the world liberal in the rest of the worl Liberals want both economic freedom and personal freedom.
But in America they are super idotic twits.

Keep your generalizations to yourself, please.

[United Provinces of Atlantica]

I, for one, think that using blackface is Racist. If they are so concerned about having black people use the Charcoal in their ads (which is actually Racist; it assumes that black people like black things, and white people like white things), then actually use black people. I'm assuming that Dunkin Donuts believes that all black people think that all blacks speak African American Vernacular English, which, while many do, not all do, but, still, RACIST.

[Esternial]

What would it take, out of curiosity, for either of you to actually see an advertisement as racist?

Hmm, maybe. . . just maybe, racism. I know, it's a novel idea, to call something what it actually is. Like, stereotyping Orientals all as "Chingaling" or what have you.

Blackface.

Also known as a caricature of black people.

Might be offensive to said black people.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

What would it take, out of curiosity, for either of you to actually see an advertisement as racist?

Something clearly insulting or offensive to a race. As I said, charcoal isn't a race.

But you are aware of the historically explicit use of that sort of "blackface" imagery (which is essentially charcoal-colored, as you pointed out) to portray people of African descent, right? That's not new to you?

[Elmo Logic]

wait, its not an actual black woman but a woman painted black?
that's pretty racist...

Why?

It's an ad for the Thai market.

I doubt the whole minstrel 'blackface' thing means anything to your average Thai so therefore.

Not Racist

[The Grey Wolf]

What would it take, out of curiosity, for either of you to actually see an advertisement as racist?

Something clearly insulting or offensive to a race. As I said, charcoal isn't a race.

^ Dang, we agree again.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Blackface make up has a long history associated with racial discrimination in the past. In that context, it's perfectly logical that DD should pull that ad. It's a stretch maybe, but an excusable one. Just like the Nazi salute evokes memories of far-right extremism and genocide, despite not being an inherently dangerous gesture, the use of blackface harks back to a time of lynching and sever discrimination for African Americans, albeit on a smaller scale.

[Gravengoth]

Oh, so blacks should always be portrayed in a positive light? Nothing that could make fun of them or insult them should be allowed, right?

Of course not. Otherwise, no more The Boondocks.

Well, that show/comic strip isn't negative about people of African descent, so much as it is about the adverse influence of a cultural identity that is beneficial to the rich white elite. One that you could argue is created by said elite, via their control over television, movies, and the music industry. So, in the spirit of the conversation... Dunkin' Donuts using racist memes is very much a problem for those above reasons. A racist culture promotes racist ideation at the individual level. This ad image is a sign of a racist culture at the company. It is really in the long run in the best interest for them to move away from that.

[Bezombia]

If a person is black, they are a black person

"black" doesn't always mean african. The person in the ad was obviously black in color, even if not in race.

So, apparently, when someone says "black person" to you, you don't think of it as it's painfully obvious meaning of African-descent, but as literal people in black? Like, as in white people doing blackface counts?

Yes.

"That person is black" commonly, but not exclusively, equates to "that person is of african descent and has darker skin".

[Imperializt Russia]

wait, its not an actual black woman but a woman painted black?
that's pretty racist...

Why?

It's an ad for the Thai market.

I doubt the whole minstrel 'blackface' thing means anything to your average Thai so therefore.

Not Racist

That's like saying Saudi's anti-women laws aren't sexist because that's the norm in Saudi Arabia.

This is not how things work.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Something clearly insulting or offensive to a race. As I said, charcoal isn't a race.

^ Dang, we agree again.

All right, same follow-up then:

Something clearly insulting or offensive to a race. As I said, charcoal isn't a race.

But you are aware of the historically explicit use of that sort of "blackface" imagery (which is essentially charcoal-colored, as you pointed out) to portray people of African descent, right? That's not new to you?

[Abatael]

This isn't a racist ad, and it's being called racist by a group of morons, the "Human Rights Watch." They are so ineffective and impotent, they have to now bitch about imagined racism, instead of, you know, actually caring about their so-called human rights.

Aye, it's rather strange that a Human Rights movement would comment on this.

Then again, given the history, it's understandable that people might consider this racist.

For those of you who can still remember such a time, black folks were depicted by white people in the past. They made their faces pitch black and gave them red lips. It was rather...stereotypical.

Nobody enjoys being highlighted by such stereotypes.

Although, I can also understand why there are those that don't see anything wrong with it.

Given the history of what? It's reminiscent of minstrel shows to a bunch of overly-sensitive people, therefore it's "RACIST!!!!1!11"? No; I don't think so. And I see the connection to how it might appear similar to minstrel shows, but any logical person should know that if something looks the same, it does not necessarily mean it is the same. They want an example? This ad is a perfect example!

If I recall correctly, they gave them white lips. Even if their lips were made red, red is not pink.

Nobody was being highlighted by such stereotypes with this ad.

Hmm, maybe. . . just maybe, racism.

Talk about a non-answer.

I know, it's a novel idea, to call something what it actually is.

Try to minimize one-handed writing if you can.

Like, stereotyping Orientals all as "Chingaling" or what have you.

Now there's some sort of actual answer. Way to go.

Frankly, I'll be willing to admit that I don't think any racist imagery was intended here, I think it's more just an issue of ignorance.

No. That IS an answer. Your failure to understand what that word means doesn't discredit it as an answer. Nice try though.

I don't understand what you're trying to say with this.

Yeah. See, let me explain this too you. Representing all Asiatics as that IS racist. And guess what the act of representing all Asiatics like that is called. It's called racism. So, that is what someone means when he says racism. Hopefully, that will help you understand the meaning of words now, instead of this false definition that's been made up by people like the Human Rights Watch.

[Fartsniffage]

So, apparently, when someone says "black person" to you, you don't think of it as it's painfully obvious meaning of African-descent, but as literal people in black? Like, as in white people doing blackface counts?

Yes.

"That person is black" commonly, but not exclusively, equates to "that person is of african descent and has darker skin".

So is your argument that when people were complaining about a lack of black people in advertising, they meant any people make to look black and not people of African descent?

[Uieurnthlaal]

Aye, it's rather strange that a Human Rights movement would comment on this.

Then again, given the history, it's understandable that people might consider this racist.

For those of you who can still remember such a time, black folks were depicted by white people in the past. They made their faces pitch black and gave them red lips. It was rather...stereotypical.

Nobody enjoys being highlighted by such stereotypes.

Although, I can also understand why there are those that don't see anything wrong with it.

Given the history of what? It's reminiscent of minstrel shows to a bunch of overly-sensitive people, therefore it's "RACIST!!!!1!11"? No; I don't think so. And I see the connection to how it might appear similar to minstrel shows, but any logical person should know that if something looks the same, it does not necessarily mean it is the same. They want an example? This ad is a perfect example!

If I recall correctly, they gave them white lips. Even if their lips were made red, red is not pink.

Nobody was being highlighted by such stereotypes with this ad.

Blackface make up has a long history associated with racial discrimination in the past. In that context, it's perfectly logical that DD should pull that ad. It's a stretch maybe, but an excusable one. Just like the Nazi salute evokes memories of far-right extremism and genocide, despite not being an inherently dangerous gesture, the use of blackface harks back to a time of lynching and severe discrimination for African Americans, albeit on a smaller scale.