The Dunkin Donuts ad featured in today’s class was not racist, in my opinion. All I really saw was advertising, a creative way. It shows the Asian girl becoming a part of the food as she takes a bite. She basically becomes the charcoal donut. This is form of advertising that is used all the time, many people might not realize it either, they are creating a character. I think it was creative and I pose the question, if she had turned brown or white to symbolize other donuts, would it be classified as racism? Considering something racist when something is obviously a form of advertising or art is creating racism when it might not be meant in such a way. I showed the video too two of my roommates and both of them said they saw what I saw. If you’re not looking for something to be racists then you won’t notice it.
“It’s absolutely ridiculous,” Nadim Salhani told the AP. “We’re not allowed to use black to promote our doughnuts? I don’t get it. What’s the big fuss? What if the product was white and I painted someone white, would that be racist?” http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/weird-wide-web/dunkin-donuts-apologizes-blackface-ad-thailand
This was a quote in the article and I have to agree with it. I don’t like the idea of screaming racism just to point it out, especially when the ad appeared somewhere they obviously did not mean it to be racist. It was brought up that the Thailand girl looked white. Yes, perhaps her skin was a shade lighter but calling her white when she is obviously not white could also be mistaken as racism. I suppose there is the reason I am taking this class because it is opening my eyes to so much, how and what people think when they view something. For example, I had no idea that Blurred Lines video portrayed women dancing around practically naked. It has definitely made me rethink the song.
Thoughts of an #SAPro 