Feel free to call me crazy but...
Isn't it possible that this ad is an attempt to play on a typical cultural stereotype about black men and white women? I’ve watched it a few times and here is what I’m thinking:
1. The image selection goes like this: Palin, mean looking Obama, yelling Obama, wolves.
2. The voice-over talks about Obama attacking Palin as the image transitions from Palin to Obama.
3. The “angry black man attacks helpless white woman” is one of the most common myths used to perpetuate racism throughout American history. It’s not just a part of the story, it is a pervasive and embedded cultural myth.
You may think this is crazy to say because there is next to zero evidence that race is present in this commercial. However, as we know in our culture, race is always present. Blackness is never invisible and the race of an African American is always in the background of any situation.
Last semester Dr. Banwart showed us a picture that the Clinton camp had doctored to make Obama look darker and to make his facial features appear more in line with stereotypes/caricatures. Why bring this up? Because I think politicians will do anything they think they can get away with if it helps them get elected and because I don’t want people to think the race issue only applies to Rs. It is great that sexism in politics gets to be discussed so openly (but sad that it is becoming so trivial…can’t we talk about the real challenges to Palin as a woman seeking the role?). So what about race?
So if I were thinking like Lakoff (or if I were doing a poor imitation) I might suggest that this ad is designed to activate the cultural archetype of an angry black man preying on a helpless white woman. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
First of all, I'm not qualified to say you're not crazy, so I won't.
However, I don't think your interpretation of this ad is off the mark. Certainly, there's the subtle(?) appeal to stereotypes you reference (I especially love the break from the footage of the wolf's mouth to Obama with his mouth open), but I think there are several things going on here (as there always are). The Alaska footage (practically the entire ad, if you include the wolves) reminds us that Palin comes from a hard land that, of course, requires strong women. She's being hunted by this gang of black men -- I mean, task force of 30 attorneys -- who were "airdropped" (yes, airdropped!) in to take her out.
Throw in the excerpts from factcheck.org and The Wallstreet Journal and it's all associated with credible sources.
Count how many times the word "drop" or a varient thereof is associated with Obama. His image is down there, trying to reach up and pull her down; her image is way up there, too strong to be dragged down (it helps too that Alaska, on the map, is way "up" there. Image-ly, that's how we think of Alaska.
Overall, a great ad -- for the Republican base (as if they needed to be mobilized).
There's just one thing I can't figure out -- how'd they get 30 attorneys in that tiny little float plane?
Update: if I am crazy to think this-I'm not the only loon on the net. Get a load of this
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/11/04157/2749/461/594502
I certainly agree with your interpretation Ben. I would like to add something concerning McCain's source citation in the add. The New York Times had this to say, "The advertisement cited a report by factcheck.org that was critical of 'completely false' attacks on Ms. Palin, but failed to note that the report was referring to internet rumors not linked to Mr. Obama's campaign." If that's not deception that I don't know what is.
The shading effect on Obama in the last scene before it cuts to a bright white image of McCain is a clear dichotomy of black and white that may be a link to Ben's argument.
My first reaction to this ad was a connection of this McCain advertisement to a similar one produced by Bush/Cheney in 2004: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2NJHh0IL4I.
If wolves on the screen tested well with research groups in 2004, it seems to have worked well enough for the republicans to use the imagery again.
With questions of stickiness left over from the reading, my question to you all is who the target audience is for the use of a wild pack of wolves? Whose attention is sparked the most when watching these types of advertisements?
The interesting question for me is: If that target audience to which Brian refers (and I think we all know who they are -- one just ran by my window with an AR-15) was presented with the factcheck.org factcheck to which Carl refers, would it change their minds about the election?
Post a Comment