Posted on August 3, 2006 - by Administrator

Overweight, sassy black woman thrives in advertisements

CVK
I gotta give props to The New York Times for tackling a subject we discuss a lot on this blog and on our podcast, Addicted to Race. Check out, for example, the rant I did in episode 8 where I counted down the top 8 most racist stereotypes of black men and women perpetuated by the media.

The article discusses the fact that the archetype of the loud, sassy, overweight black woman continues to pop up time after time, especially in advertising. The latest example is a Dairy Queen commercial (I haven’t seen this yet – anyone want to weigh in?) in which one of these black women freaks out after someone accidentally drops luggage on her head.

I’m shocked — shocked! — that Dairy Queen, inventor of the oh-so-cleverly-titled MooLatte (coffee + milk = brown + white, get it?) would be capable of racial insensitivity. Their ad agency, Grey Worldwide, of course claims that the writing and casting process was colorblind:

…the script was not written with a black actress in mind.

“We basically cast the funniest person,” he said. “We didn’t specifically cast for a black woman. We said, ‘Wow, she’s really funny.’ And she happened to be black.”

Uh huh. If the “I can’t be racist, I’m in an interracial relationship!” excuse was the top trend of 2005, then the emerging top trend of 2006 must be using “colorblind” casting as a way to sidestep accusations of racism. We’ve already seen David Crane, producer of the new CBS show “The Class” defend his all-white cast by claiming that they used a colorblind casting process and that the final cast just happened to be the best actors, regardless of color. As I told MacLean’s magazine, I don’t think there is such a thing as “colorblind casting.” All these casting decisions are very, very deliberate. More after the jump…

The NYT article lists other recent commercials that rely on the big, sassy black woman archetype: Pine Sol, Captain Morgan, Twix, Universal Studios, etc. It also does a good job of pointing out that these images are particularly disturbing because for the most part, they are created for white people by white people:

The lack of diversity on Madison Avenue has been a long-standing issue. In fact, the New York City Commission on Human Rights is investigating the hiring practices of advertising agencies in the city and is looking at how they have approached employing blacks…

Ms. Gumbinner and Mr. Cusato of Grey Advertising, however, said no black writers were involved in either of their campaigns.

And because that’s the case, it’s important to look at why people are laughing. Are they laughing with the image or at the image?

Some whites, Ms. Dates said, may laugh thinking, “Wow, she’s so ridiculous. My people aren’t like that.” She added: “They wouldn’t consciously feel that way. But there is something going on subconsciously because that’s what advertising is all about. They’re trying to tap into some feeling, some emotion, some psychological hang-up.”

Blacks, meanwhile, might laugh because they can identify with the character, Ms. Dates said. “It’s for both the people who want to snicker and say, ‘See, that’s how they are.’ And for people to say, ‘There’s one of us.’ ”

As I discussed in episode 21 of Addicted to Race, this issue — who is laughing at racial humor/satire and why are they laughing — is exactly why shows like The Boondocks and The Chappelle Show make me uncomfortable. Of course, Chappelle himself became uncomfortable with this as well and it’s one of the reasons he was driven to walk away from the show. Don’t these types of representations simply give people permission to laugh at and enjoy racist stereotypes?