Seemingly everyone is getting the vapors over this: Acura We're So Sorry We Excluded Dark-Skinned Blacks
Really! What naifs people are. Do they think it's Magick that commercials almost always contain actors who, if not already famous, are "nice looking, friendly", regardless of race? Do people think it's Magick that almost all commercials contain at least one black actor -- who is almost always "nice looking, friendly, not too dark" -- even when portraying social situations in which one would almost never see both blacks and whites simultaneously?
Though, in truth, it's not so much that people are naive as that they utterly loathe being made to see the ugly truth behind the pleasant fairy-tales of "liberal" rule of society.
If it is offensive that Acura explicitly and intentionally sought a black actor who was "not too dark", then why isn't it at least as offensive, if not more so, that Acura explicitly and intentionally "sought to cast an African-American in a prominent role in the commercial", in the first place?
Alternately, if it isn't offensive that Acura explicitly and intentionally "sought to cast an African-American in a prominent role in the commercial", then why is it offensive that they or their agency also had the courtesy to save everyone's time, effort, and expense by making it clear up-front that they sought a black actor who was "not too dark"?
Personally, I find it offensive that seemingly *every* commercial has to have its "token black friend" (*) in any group of friends being portrayed. Understand, it's not the fact of the black friend's race that is offensive, but rather the various leftish rationales of why the writers of the ad put him there.
(*) who is nonetheless the linchpin holding the group together
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment