Unless you live without the internet for days at a time, it would be hard to miss the ongoing controversy over the new PSP's adverstisments for the new white PSP.
If you haven't seen them, here's a sample...
As you can see, the ads feature a white woman dressed in all white holding a black woman dressed in all black in "threatening" positions. The sole purpose according to Sony is to promote the addition of white play station portables to the market. For a few articles on the subject...
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6153643.html
http://www.mad.co.uk/Main/News/Articlex/8f9441756b434818920b3cef465f5d91...
And a blog at: http://www.joystiq.com/2006/07/04/ad-critic-sonys-racially-charged-psp-a...
I can definately see how some could argue that these images are racially charged -- I mean it shows two races at 'odds' with each other over which PSP to buy, hmmm, black or white? But I find the outrage surrounding these ads misplaced. Would we be this up in arms if the new color was yellow (an asian person wearing all yellow) or red (native american wearing all red) or even dressed people in multi-colors like the Fanta commercials. I think the controversy comes from white seeming to overpower black and if these colors were reversed we would have heard little about the ad.
Plus, all this flame-throwing at Sony is only increasing their audience (even if that audience is upset) and informing said audience of the new PSP color -- the point of the ad in the first place. Any media exposure is good media exposure, right?
So what do you think -- racist? offensive? too much hype?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I think the black woman is more attractive personally.
As for racism, I think this is too much hype.
Citizen Press Revolution
your liking way too much into it
Liking what too much? I don't really understand what you are saying. Can you clarify?
racist, though the intent of Sony may have been artistically designed. Too much hype? Probably.
Beautiful artistic pictures though (in terms of shadows and light) but unfortunately that in itself probably lends more credence to the idea that it's appearance is racist.
I don't use Sony or care about it one iota though.
***The thing is, if you control the Senate meetings, you control the gavel. And the gavel is a very important instrument... an instrument of power. An instrument that establishes the agenda.
Dan Quayle former Republican VP of George Bush Sr***
I definately agree that artistically the pictures are fantastic! Very appealing and provoking (surely the intent was there from the beginning).
I don't care too much for sony or PSP either, but had to comment after encountering articles outraged at sony for these ads at almost every site I accessed for the past couple of days.
I don't see anything wrong with it. I think, sometimes, people read too much into it. But then again, it could be a plot to get the advertisments across more to the ones who, like me, haven't seen them...And I live on the net...
I will permit no man to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him. ~Booker T. Washington
really? get over yourself. everyone needs to shut the hell up and quit with the race card, afterall white people are the minority anyways!!!!!
first we ought to define racism.
you could call racism any belief that has race involved. For instance: 'a lot of Mexican people live there' or 'white people are usually richer' or even something more inflammatory like 'black people are stupid'. you could also see racism in art, as in racist literature or visual art, like this advert, or in the paintings of some nationalist or racist artists who I can't think of.
But I think none of these things form the proper definition of racism. The only form that would matter is the denial of equal protection under the law based on race. The injustices of the Pre-Civil rights era are obvious instances. a modern one would be the government's practice of regulating the hell out of Indian reservation casinos so that they can't make tons of money, because the gvt's afraid of Native Americans having money. this is stupid and wrong--it's institutional racism.
The other form of racism is of course crime--which is also a removal of rights--that is directed towards a racial group. This includes the KKK's lynches or something similar. But we already have protections in place against crime. it's illegal, and acts of crime carry punishments.
The incidental, minor behaviors I mentioned at the top are NOT racism, and they should not be condemned or disparaged. It's nonsense to assail anyone for any expression of nationalism or racism--it doesn't hurt anyone. Is this ad racism? no. are paintings of black people optimistically floating to heaven racism? no. are any individuals' beliefs regarding race an instance of racism? no. Accordingly, it's a misrepresentation to put those behaviors on the same level as governments mindlessly oppressing races. You can't presume to call those behaviors morally wrong or deserving of any punishment, because that'd be like trying to control everyone's beliefs. which is impossible, absurd, and authoritarian. just....I sort of wave a lazy hand and all this and think laissez faire, laissez aller, laissez passer...why should anyone care?
Sony is not denying anyone their rights. Leave them the fuck alone. the NAACP needs to dislodge the cactus from its ass.
Michael Allen Yarbrough (PBUH)
uhm. maybe all the invective here was unnecessary. I don't think such sensitive racists actually exist. They're like magical flying ponies, or leprechauns. they're just too ridiculous to be around, you know?
Thanks for the detailed explanation. It is a lot easier to decide when you lay out the definition as such. And I agree with your assessment. I didn't think the ad was racist to begin with -- provocative, yes, but not derogatory.
I appreciate your assent.
by the definition I put forth, you're right--the ad indeed isn't racist. Still, even if it had been derogatory, I would take the laissez-passer idea further by asserting that no one should really care--it's just an insult, a few words or an offensive message. I don't know how people receive this idea...but eh, I think it's correct.
And I thought of another ad today. a black man says 'who's agitatin' my dots?? are you agitatin' my dots?' I realized that it was absurd for people to rage over the sony ad, when the tone in this one was clearly that black people are funny.
Michael Allen Yarbrough (PBUH)
The ad was obviously not meant to be racist however, Sony should have had the sense to realize that it would be perceived as such. The fact that they could not find a less contraversial ad campaign perplexes me. I like to believe that it's not a racist ad. But it is possible that there is a hint of racism at the heart of it.