I can believe it's "accidental" in the sense that whoever designed that ad might not have consciously thought "put the thin, white blond where people will see after," but that's like saying it's "accidental" when buildings that aren't built to code are destroyed by an earthquake, while well-built ones that shake the same amount stand. Human action is still involved, and that's not random: it comes out of a culture and set of ideas.
Wow. No, I don't think you're reading too much into it.
I *can* believe that it's "accidental" in the sense that I can believe nobody consciously decided to create that "before -> after" progression that's followed along with a change in skin tone that reinforces racist ideas. However, certainly it seems plausible that even if it wasn't a consciously explicit decision, it's not "accidental" in that the designers "just thought it looked better that way" for a set of reasons that involve racial perceptions. Either way, I can't believe that nobody *caught* that before it went to press.
Well, to me, it's not just where the thin white blond is, but that body shape and skin colour "just happen" to follow the same progression (eg they could have chosen the middle skin tone as the thinnest). But I certainly agree with Human action is still involved, and that's not random: it comes out of a culture and set of ideas. - I don't know that anyone wanted those ideas laid out quite so explicitly?
I can't quite figure out if the motivation was something like "oh, black women will be so grateful to see a black woman in an ad also aimed at white women they won't mind if she's the fattest, but we won't sell to any white women if the white woman isn't close to ideal" but I imagine at some level it must have been something like that?
a friend of mine did her PhD about the cultural practices around skin bleaching.
there's nothing accidental about that ad :(
flying back from Budapest, I read the Air Canada duty-free catalog; the "available only on flights to/from Asia" section included a variety of skin bleaching products. I saved it for my friend to add to her collection :(
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-25 03:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-25 03:38 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-25 10:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-25 11:38 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-25 07:01 pm (UTC)I *can* believe that it's "accidental" in the sense that I can believe nobody consciously decided to create that "before -> after" progression that's followed along with a change in skin tone that reinforces racist ideas. However, certainly it seems plausible that even if it wasn't a consciously explicit decision, it's not "accidental" in that the designers "just thought it looked better that way" for a set of reasons that involve racial perceptions. Either way, I can't believe that nobody *caught* that before it went to press.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-26 12:02 am (UTC)I can't quite figure out if the motivation was something like "oh, black women will be so grateful to see a black woman in an ad also aimed at white women they won't mind if she's the fattest, but we won't sell to any white women if the white woman isn't close to ideal" but I imagine at some level it must have been something like that?
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-26 09:46 pm (UTC)there's nothing accidental about that ad :(
flying back from Budapest, I read the Air Canada duty-free catalog; the "available only on flights to/from Asia" section included a variety of skin bleaching products. I saved it for my friend to add to her collection :(