no comment
nubian on Aug 16th 2006
both images are borrowed from blackfolk i did not design the second ad mocking paltrow.
(oh go and vote for blackfolk as best community blog here)
here is a response to this ad:
Filed in race, funny, pop culture |
I saw that earlier this week, and figured you’d catch wind of it soon. I’ve had other moments where I just wondered how Paltrow can breathe with her head stuff that far up her own ass, though. The shit she said when filming “Shallow Hal” was pretty monumental in it’s cluelessness. I’m betting this a campaign, though.. so expect to see “African” versions of Jessica Biel and Jessica Simpson soon…
Everytime i see that, i just want to shout “No, you aren’t
This is the same woman who sniffed at one of the crew on a film of hers who was feeding his kids Cup-A-Soup and declared that she would rather die than feed that to her kids. She’s an insufferable snob.
Yeah, my Worthless-Famewhore Radar is pinging here. What a muppet.
LMAO! thats all i have to say!
Lol wow. I’m kind of on the fence with this. There are some celebrities who DO care about what’s going on in Africa [and they happen to be white]. But for her to be on an ad that says “I am African”? I don’t get it. Is she saying that she suffer just like them because I definitely don’t see it!
*waiting patiently for liberal who shows up to say “all of our ancestors are from africa, therefore we are all african”…
Yay, nubian reads blackfolk too!
I had this one up and I’m glad you got it up too but dear god can we jsut start whupping peopels asses ?
BEcause frankly my intellectuall outrage is now out numbered by a desire to just work on my right cross
I had only heard about the ad and right away my reaction was one that was already here- no you are not you skinny ass gringa. But of course you - as usual put it so much better….
Excuse me, “intellectuall outrage?” You have to spell it first before you can claim it. Paltrow isn’t the poser here.
This whole thread is revolting and racist. The whole point of the campaign is to make a point that even if you’re not “african” in the racial or national sense, you can get off your ass and step up to the plate. You can claim “I am African” the same way John Kennedy said “I am a Berliner.” The Germans didn’t throw shit at him and say get the hell out of our country. They had some functioning brain cells in their head.
I think it’s a great ad, it makes a great point, and if it didn’t have a beautiful white woman in it you’d all be loving it.
I saw this on the ap_racism community too - so wrong. So profoundly, offensively, misguidedly, disgustingly WRONG.
You can claim “I am African” the same way John Kennedy said “I am a Berliner.” The Germans didn’t throw shit at him and say get the hell out of our country.
africa is not a country.
Let’s start by calling these people uneducated. Nice. Never made a typo? Get over yourself.
Now, ask yourself why the fact that some people are bothered/upset/outraged by these commercials makes you so angry. Step back, assume that they are NOT just stupid or wrong and try to see another perspective.
You can claim “I am African” the same way John Kennedy said “I am a Berliner.”
What you forgot to mention is that his German was crap because he didn’t learn any before he addressed the German people, and instead of saying “Ich bin Berliner” (which would mean “I am a Berliner”), he said “Ich bin ein Berliner”, which translates idiomatically as “I am a jelly doughnut”.
They didn’t throw shit at him or anything but they had a good laugh at his expense later.
So your comparison is quite apt, though not in the way you intended.
Oh, yes, and try not to compare them to a bunch of monkeys in a cage at a zoo while you’re at it.
Ooh lookie attacks on my intelligence again WOHOOO!
Made by someone with no real knowledge of contextual nor cultural knowledge of either the topic of discussion or the historical refrence she tries to make.
Mind you I’m more offended that she thinks GP is pretty. EEK!
PS someone owes Vegan a five spot
And David Bowie (one of my faves) is also doing this same ad campaign.
My immediate reaction was anger — and what were they thinking? I know their intent is to raise money, but cultural appropriation and colonialism are not the way to go.
haha. hahahahhaha… what?
this is just funny. of course i don’t know the context in which the ad was made, or the prehistory, but i’m guessing it’s ‘humanitarian’ and epistomological (!;))
but hey, i’m more african than that bitch then–at least my people didn’t devastate and kill the continent of africa prior to claiming they’re all afrophiles now!
nubian Said: @2:52 pm
africa is not a country.
No, Germany is a country. The audience was in Germany.
@3:29 pm
instead of saying “Ich bin Berliner” (which would mean “I am a Berliner”), he said “Ich bin ein Berliner”, which translates idiomatically as “I am a jelly doughnut”.
Are you high? Go to a translate page or open a book. There was nothing wrong with the phrase.
kate Said: @3:35 pm
Oh, yes, and try not to compare them to a bunch of monkeys in a cage at a zoo while you’re at it.
Your context, not mine. Some serious mental racial issues going on upstairs. To throw something means you’re a monkey? Maybe when you do it is.
@7:53
my reaction was one that was already here- no you are not you skinny ass gringa.
You wish you could look as good at GP. And have half of her dignity, morals, looks, and everything else. I assume from your crude and racist post that you are not a skinny gringa. Hmmm…what’s the opposite of that image. Scary.
11:43 pm
I had this one up and I’m glad you got it up too but dear god can we jsut start whupping peopels asses?
Start with mine. Then I get a turn.
By the way, and besides all the other offensive things you have all said, just stop and think a minute what that African woman in the photograph thinks of your graffiti on her face and ugly words which somehow are supposed to be her words. What makes you think she would like you doing that, because she’s black? What a stereotypical judgment.
No matter how you present it, you slapped your hateful words on her picture. Paltrow at least is representing the words on her ad voluntarily with full knowledge and agreement. And none of her words are hateful.
MsJane,
Try for a moment to step out of attack mode. You compared the construction of a satiracal image to “throwing shit and say(ing) get the hell out of our country” i.e. you took an intellectual response to an advertisment and attacked it as if it were a violent response, including throwing feces (an activity only engaged in by monkeys and apes to the best of my knowledge). In the context of a blog written by a person of color that is unambiguously racist. I do not see any other way to read your comment. And that is not the only hateful thing you said in that brief paragraph.
Again, I ask you, try to examine why this post makes you SO ANGRY. Your anger just seems totally out of proportion.
And, JJ was right about the German grammar. It is the sort of subtlety that automatic translaters miss.
i know, vegankid, right?
that’s what i meant in my comment–i mean, i’d supposed as one of the explanations that she was claiming/representing that epystomological point of view.
but whatever. in the large scale of things i’m so sick of this that i just don’t give a big fuck
i loved the ‘response’ photo tho. a lot. very sharp. haha. realy exposed gwyneth’s stupidity
msjane
get a clue and please do not post here again. your comments are a waste of space—and i’m trying to be nice.
peace, though.
God forbid someone use their fame to prmote awareness of a plagued culture. You group of ass holes make even the shallowest Hollywood icon look like an altruist. If you people are such rabid supporters of civil liberties, why don’t you stop focusing all your attention on Gweneth Paltrow latest interview and send some support to the people this ad is trying to help.
The photo used in the mock ad is stunning, very 19th century formal portraiture in style, a family heirloom for somebody.
It is true that the real ad arrests the attention, by cognitive dissonance (white movie actress - African???). But it becomes All About Her at the same time. Feh. Message of AIDS is lost. Ad does not motivate viewer to do anything, because after all, white actress has nothing to do with AIDS in Africa a. she doesn’t live there(S.A.?) any more b. she would not be at high risk if she did live in S.A.. This is a typical ad made by an agency that sells perfume in Vogue.
More effective would be to introduce one of the dynamos of grass-roots HIV care, the young student who lobbied the government (Mbeki and his HIV-doesn’t-cause-AIDS-so-we-won’t
pay-for drugs), or the granny who has organized an AIDS-orphan day care, free lunch, hostel in her front yard, or… They could come up with pungent and memorable quotes that could open pocketbooks. Too bad Madison Ave. underestimates the public and is oblivious to its own racism.
I saw this and the David Bowie advertisement in a magazine last week. I just didn’t get it. She’s African? Can anyone claim to be African nowadays? What is the paint supposed to mean? What do *they* (Bowie and Paltrow) have to do with Africa and AIDS? The whole campaign is confusing and basically does more for them than it does for Africans with AIDS. I am white and I immediately saw through the ad.
If they were going to use a white woman, they should have used a white woman who actually is African; Charlize Theron is South African. Plus, she’s a better actress.
It is a weird campaign. One of those that some advertising company put together without really thinking it through.
I had a look on the website given on the picture (keepachildalive.org). It explains the campaign in terms of how we all have African roots. It does use non-white celebrities as well. Seal, Alicia Keys, Tyson Beckford, Lucy Lui.
Still comes over as a bit odd, even though it has succeded in getting people’s attention. Maybe if they wanted to do the big happy multicolored family thing then they could have done a picture with all different people, different ethnicities and a caption like “AIDS is a problem for all humanity”, or something.
i get their intent. i just feel it is done in bad taste. of course, having an image of say, halle berry, angela basset, or any other black hollywood actress would still make me question their choice.
i just think the paint and the beads, are over the top to the point it’s impossible to take it seriously. it looks like a bad joke.
Nubian, I agree with you about the beads being over the top. It’s nice that Gwyneth wanted to bring attention to the problems in Africa but her lack of cultural understanding and sensitivity ruins the message.
ChoqlitQT, one doesn’t have to be a better actress to pose in a photograph.
and secondly, having charleze theron would not have allayed any problematics of this photo at all. if anything, it would have made it even more fucked-up and mocking to the real african people. south african whites are NOT african. they’re some of the worst and harshest colonialists who STILL have all the power in that country, whereas they shouldn’t even be there in the first place.
i can’t believe you would even suggest something proposterous like that!
then, ChoqlitQT, it would have been even a more absolute, unscrupulous, and blatant appropriation [first we came, killed off and enslaved your people on your own land, appropriated your land and resources, devastated your health and took away your freedom, jailing you in empoverished and famine-ridden ‘townships’ and with horrendous diseases, and now we claim that WE are african, i.e. that we’re the masters of this land…]. do you follow my drift?
yea sky,
i think the south african actress would not be much better.
this whole ad campaign is bonkers and should be scrapped.
Plus which, I know I miss a lot of pop culture stuff, but I just did not understand what this ad was about the first few times I saw it. The paint looks like some airline logo (I can’t remember which, but I’m sure I saw it last time I flew!), and it’s Gwyneth Paltrow (who is so very much not African), and I just went, “huh? the heck?” … what I’m trying to say is, on top of it being remarkably offensive, it doesn’t get its point across effectively.
Unless of course the point they’re trying to get across is that this ad company sees no problem with exploiting the suffering of Black people. In which case: well done, ad company! That message came through loud and clear.
Does anyone remember that after 9/11, many other nationalities said “I am an American?” I don’t think this can be lost in translation. My first thought was the ad was trying to get people who would not ordinarily identify with the nations of Africa, to empathize with the problem of Aids.
I can’t believe that so many of us can be small minded an immature.
I would like for more of us to stand for real issues that black African countries face.
Why is it considered small minded to stand up for thousands of culture not being reduced to paint and beads by people who are often preposterously more than they do ?
Many of whom are also benefiting indirectly and directly in ways that consistently contribute to the problems that this CONTINENT faces.
We gave you disease famine colonialism and internalized inferiority less than 200 years ago often denying your humanity but we’ll take it back now if we get press coverage!
Culture which is often the first thing lost is valuable and deserves to be fought for, it’s not small minded .
And nothing prevents me form going ” Holy crap what the hell is up with the fame starveed white woman, in the bad press add, that subverts the focus of the charity?” AND being really concerned about Sudan,Congo, Rwanda et al. as specific places and working towards aiding them without coopting or subverting their own authority and nationality .
And comparing America’s 9/11 which actually killed many many different nationalities in a country that was not crippled by interventionist( except it’s own ) policy and which was basically a declaration of war by a hostile entity expressing MANY greivances to a continent crippled by Drug companies who use racism and greed to prevent medications from going to the necessary places?
Doesn’t match
I actually “got” the intent of the ad in the first place - that every human alive has roots in Africa. But, I still think that could be made a hell of a lot more clear in the ad! I completely understand why people find it confusing!
More than that, I just find this completely insensitive and inappropriate - not simply because she is white, but because of the paint and the beads. Never mind the fact that what these celebrities represent - blatant money-worshipping capitalism - is part of what is contributing to the problem of HIV/AIDS in Africa.
Does anyone remember that after 9/11, many other nationalities said “I am an American?” I don’t think this can be lost in translation. My first thought was the ad was trying to get people who would not ordinarily identify with the nations of Africa, to empathize with the problem of Aids.
I can’t believe that so many of us can be small minded an immature.
I would like for more of us to stand for real issues that black African countries face.
Like has been said, this is a completely different situation. It’s intention might have been good at one point, but it realization smacks of the continuation of a colonialistic approach and attitude by assigning the colonizing forces the right and the role of defining who is or who is not a resident of the continent where this colonialism took place and how they will be identified. Because more things identifies the many diverse cultures of Africa besides how we view the way they dress. Language, religion, cultural practices, community are some of these things.
Since when do descendants of colonizing countries who are still trying to engage in that behavior get to decide who is and is not African? And then so-and-so is African, see because they have facial paint and beads on, which carries the message way beyond just being concerned about the tragic impact of AIDS and HIV on many African countries.
Face paint and beads appropriation(especially considering the volume of media spent degrading and insulting native dress or what is perceived to be native dress in many indiginous cultures in Africa and in other places including North America)is just insulting and NOT needed to show concern about what is going on regarding HIV and AIDs in Africa.
Colonializing forces and apparently their descendants have no respect for the cultures and peoples that they do or try to dominate, denigrate and in many cases, incorporate(i.e. denigrating cultural expression as “primative” out of one side of your mouth then co-opting it or even making money out of it on the other side).
I can’t believe that so many of us can be small minded an immature.
I would like for more of us to stand for real issues that black African countries face.
This ad is small-minded. I agree that more people should stand strong on these issues, but also there needs to be acknowlegement that many of these “issues” were brought upon by the devastating impact of colonialism and racism by European nations and the United States. As for standing on issues, there are surely better and more respectful ways to do it than this.
including throwing feces (an activity only engaged in by monkeys and apes to the best of my knowledge)
Yeah, I don’t want to be seen as making any kind of attempt to “defend” MsJane because her comments were way off-base and totally out of line, but I think she meant “throwing shit” in a colloquial sense, not literally. Like… shit = stuff. I’m all for calling foul when someone says something dumb, but we should at least be careful to call foul for the right reasons.
I actually “got” the intent of the ad in the first place - that every human alive has roots in Africa.
I wish I could agree that that was in the intent of the ad, but frankly I don’t think the advertisers were smart enough to get that connection. I thought it was more “I am African” in the sense that we’re all people and their troubles are her troubles, etc. Which is all well and good, but that still doesn’t make her an African and it still doesn’t make what amounts to an updated minstrel show okay.
The thing that makes this really offensive to me is that it gives no chance for an actual African to speak. Gwyneth certainly has a lot of celebrity clout and I have no problem in theory of her using that status to draw attention to serious issues - it may be dumb that she has more cultural authority than someone else might, but she should take advantage of the platform she’s been given. What she should be doing though is using the access she has to the public and to the media to step aside and let the voices she’s trying to draw attention to actually raise themselves. That would be real activism and it would prove that she’s not just in this to make herself even more famous and feel good about doing something.
Instead, she takes on this face paint and beads with the words “I am African” plastered across her picture and tries to represent people who haven’t had a chance to represent themselves in American/European cultural discourse ever. It’s always about Africans and never by Africans. If anyone thinks this isn’t just an extension of neocolonial powers, then they’re entirely missing the point.
I agree with your post, Bryan. I didn’t see any intent to express that the ad was about all humans having common roots in Africa, for the same reasons that you stated.
Instead, she takes on this face paint and beads with the words “I am African” plastered across her picture and tries to represent people who haven’t had a chance to represent themselves in American/European cultural discourse ever. It’s always about Africans and never by Africans. If anyone thinks this isn’t just an extension of neocolonial powers, then they’re entirely missing the point.
Yes.
i am sure the face paint and beads do not mean anything either. i checked out the site and all the celebs have some weird paint on their face. i think that is more insulting.
I dunno. It’s offensive, yup. But it DOES also make you read the text at the bottom, mostly because the natural “Huh? Gwyneth? African? What the fuck?” reaction makes you curious to see what it says.
So… it’s offensive, AND it’s functional. Whether the balance is good or bad is a judgement beyond my ability.
(cue Rod Serling’s voice)
Imagine, if you will, a sllck, overstuffed modern magazine full of puff pieces about celebrities. Turn the pages, watching semi-clad heroin-chic barely post-pubescent men and women lounging on shore lines, wearing the latest fashions. Flip the pages casually until…suddenly….you enter … the Honesty Zone:
“I am a colonizer”
A picture of Gwyneth Paltrow stares out at you. Modern armaments are tucked under her arm, blood streams from her hands as she rests her fashionably-clad booth upon a pile of broken African bodies.
“My culture appropriated and destroyed the land of these people.,” she tells us.
“But the scourge of AIDS is a far worse fate than what we had planned! We only wanted to steal their resources and benefit from their cheap labor. Honest! But this AIDS mess is so much worse than the horrors we chose to inflict. How can we enjoy their music and lovely dancing when they are too weak to perform for us? Help me to assuage my guilt. Drop a nickle in the bucket, today. That way your guilt and mine will magically disappear. I’m Gwyneth, and I’m a colonizer!”
[…] Blackademic posted Gwyneth Paltrow’s cri de coeur over at her blog, along with a brilliant parody that I’d heard about but been unable to find. Gwyneth Paltrow’s stab at–maybe more of a fumble towards–philanthropy is celebrity overidentification taken just a wee bit too far. The picture is a black-and-white close-up portrait photograph of Gwyn. She’s wearing some sort of African or pseudo-African jewelry; the effect is like a whitewashed spoof version of an Edward S. Curtis photograph, or any of the anthropological pictures that so fascinated Westerners in the era of the human display. She’s wearing face paint that looks patently inauthentic. It’s like a decal an eight-year-old would get at a county fair. She has a sensitive, soulful, humanitarian expression on her face, like when Jack Black told her he loved her for her. […]
Oh my stars and garters, the parody is hilarious and stunning. Stunning because the original add is such an unintentional self-parody that I wouldn’t think it was possible to parody it. Congratulations to blac(k)ademic on pulling it off. To be fair to Paltrow if I had been in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow I would be looking for something to revive my sorry ass career too.
Oh and Ravenmn, beautiful post. Gwyneth Paltrow Colonizer, there is a cheap sci fi movie in there somewhere.
Nothing could be easier to understand than the statement that “Africa is not face paint and beads”, and yet some here seem anxious to absolutely miss it.
With all of your talents you too could have produced an ad and started an organization to help the your “so called brothers” in Africa fight aids, if you think there is always an altierior motive of white people. We do have the resources to travel and to become emerged with in the cultures and do the ground work with the health organizations in those African countries. Speak for Africans? We do know enough ourselves, even to speak of what others know.
Like some of the others I can sort of see the effect they were going for, but they fell flat on their face. The beads? Oh my GAWD, the beads make me cringe. Not to mention this whole “Africa’s a country” thing they’re obviously perpetuating, whether willingly or unwillingly.
VRB - if enough was known, then they would have realised that this ad is offensive and that’s a fact. the intent may be to help but as an african i see through the ads self serving motives. we see it waaay to often not to be able to recognize publicity stunts from stuff that really helps.
Is it just Ms. Paltrow that you have a problem with appearing in the ads? Is it celebrity endorsement in general? How do you feel about the ad featuring Iman? It’s very similar to the one featuring Ms. Paltrow - head shot with African-inspired neck wear and colored stripe on face. Is one more or less offensive than the other? Why?
An effective ad campaign should be attention-getting and even provocative and this campaign certainly achieves that. However, an effective campaign also should encourage people to think well of the charity and here it fails.
Reading about Keep A Child Alive, it’s clear that they have a serious intent to address a horrific problem. However, they have an equally provocative campaign called Be A Drug Dealer that would provoke talk and hype without appropriating another’s culture. The same photo of Paltrow without the face paint with the tag: I am a Drug Dealer could have accomplished the same goal and avoided racism — so long as the actors and other celebrities who participate did not decide to don “gangsta clothing” and exploit racist stereotyping.
As a white person who admires the purity and simplicity of much Asian art, I know I struggle with avoiding cultural appropriation. I do occassionally buy a piece of Asian art, but am careful to ensure that it has no religious or symbolic significance — a painting of a cat or a flower, but not of a temple or of gods or goddesses, for example. Avoiding iconography is a critical step, I believe, in appreciating and enjoying elements of another culture without crossing the line into apprropriation and colonialism. The reason I mention that is my understanding that in those African cultures that use face paint, the paint has signficance and meaning. It is not the African equivalent of eye shadow; but a iconography of the body. Given that, it seems that this campaign’s use of face paint adds to the offense.
Looking at the entire series of photos, it’s possible that the face paint is merely a design element without iconographic meaning, but that then trivializes the face painting traditions of Africa.
As to the “I Am African” statement. Yes, it’s a statement of solidarity, but it would be clearer if they said “We Are All Africans” appealing to the idea that no man is an island and that those things that harm the people of Africa harm us all and that we are all diminished by the suffering of other people. I still wouldn’t like it because I am not fond of the “We are the World” feel good messages that ignore the evils that create famine, epidemics and war, but it wouldn’t set my hair on fire with anger.
Lastly, because this post is going on too long, when Paltrow and all these others who were privileged by falling out of the gumball chute in an industrialized, economically advanced country claim they are African, they claim it only metaphorically. They are not giving up their comfort and privilege to exchange it for poverty, hunger, sickness and fear — the unfortunate birthright of all too many of Africa’s children. So what part of Africa are they: the Afro-Pop, face-painting, party all night long with your bangles and beads part — not the land-destroyed-by-American-agribusiness part, not the starving-for-the-sake-of-environmentalism part, not the hungry, sick and dying part, not the living in the middle of a civil war part. That’s the inherant cancer at the center of any campaign that employs cultural appropriation. It only takes the culture’s bounty and leaves the chaff on the ground.
The ad sucks, and it doesn’t accomplish its supposed intent. The intent should be to draw focus to the plight of AIDS in Africa, right? So why is there no representation of the people who are actually suffering? Why is the entire FULL PAGE AD a picture of a white woman who is not of African descent, and does not have HIV? The ad takes the focus off those who are actually suffering, who actually need help, and puts it on her. “Yeah, those Africans need help, but first, LOOKIT ME! I can play dress up!” It’s the same way I’m disgusted every time Bush plays dressup in a flight suit, when the man was AWOL from his flying duty. He, like Paltrow in this ad, thinks that slapping on an outfit means you understand where the other person is coming from.
It’s also extremely patronizing. Rather than let them speak for themselves, she’s speaking for them. I am an African, and let me tell you how Africans suffer.
And why is it that trolls so often feel the need to tell others, particularly women, people of color, and ESPECIALLY women of color, just how their movements need to be? I don’t think nubian needs your “helpful” advice. Believe it or not, she’s a human being, a damned strong one at that, who can fucking well write on her blog what she wants. Her parody was hilarious, to the point, and well crafted, and perfectly encapsulated much of what I just took 2 paragraphs to say in words.
The ad is racist and patronising and the spoof one makes that point very well. I just wish whoever done it hadn’t used the word ‘whore’.
Oh my god that’s hilarious- I almost choked on the water I was drinking.
You know- I could see if it was an anti-hunger campaign, with instead of “I am African” underneath her, it saying “I am Starving”- that, you know, well that would make a little more sense- visually at least. Or, perhaps, whatever German phrase that means “I need to eat a jelly donut.”
Frumoius B, I would call the add with Iman *less* offensive: she really *is* African! (Though the face paint, depending on the context, could still be questionable.)
All of the folks here who are freaking out over how mean everyone is to poor Gwynnie should get a grip and stop their bleating.
That ad was beyond patronizing. Here’s the deal–Gwyenneth, and Angelina, and the other people who cry over how horrible it is for people in Africa aren’t African. They aren’t the ones who have had to deal with civil war, and extreme poverty, and colonization, and racism. No, they benefit from it. They–hell, WE–benefit from the cheap labor in the EPZ’s, they benefit from the blood diamond industry which provides the gems for their oversized jewels, they benefit simply because Europe and North America has had a field day in exploiting the nations and the people of Africa, using their resources, and sucking everyone dry. We all benefit from this. And me benefiting from the theft and exploitation of labor and resources doesn’t make me African or Gwynnie African.
But jeez, trolls do go on about how meeeeaaaaannn and raaaaacist those women of color on a blog are. Since, you know, Whites’ hurt fee-fees are on the same level as slavery, colonization, exploitation, a history of enforced apartheid, and institutional violence. Or not.
Sheesh. Your pacifiers are in the mail, people.
Wouldn’t the whole ad have made sense if the tagline had been “We are all African”?
Also, if they had left the facepaint and beads off of Gwyneth. The beads - likely not African. The color of the paint - not natural colors, therefore not traditional in any culture. Also I think they’re photoshopped. She couldn’t be fussed to have actual icky paint on her face, I’m sure. The woman, sure, she can lend her celeb cred to any campaign, but she needs to not be so fucking clueless about it. That ad did cause me to do a literal double-take, but was ineffective in that I didn’t remember what the cause was. I mean, it’s all Gwyneth’s giant head, and a tiny little logo for the cause. So on top of being completely offensive, it’s lousy advertising.
LOVE the parody, BTW.
and hate the trolls. Who’s got so much time on their hands they go around spewing hate and nastiness on other people’s blogs? Maybe MsJane should get a job or something.
Here’s the deal–Gwyenneth, and Angelina, and the other people who cry over how horrible it is for people in Africa aren’t African.
Exactly. What if a DV nonprofit had created an ad campaign wherein male celebrities–Sean Penn, say, or Colin Farrell, or Tom Cruise–were shown making big eyes for the camera with photoshopped bruises and split lips. They could even wear drag. We are all abused women. I really don’t think so, you know? And I don’t think it’d be much less offensive if the campaign included Natalie Portman and Heidi Klum.
MsJane,
By the way, “Ich bin ein Berliner” does in fact mean “I’m a jelly doughnut.” Translation tools don’t often do a good job with idiomatic idiosyncracies, so I hope that you will desist in your campaign for widespread use of them. To say “I am a Berliner,” one would say, “Ich bin Berliner.”
It’s the article “ein” that changes the meaning. It’s the same difference between saying, “I am cosmopolitan,” and “I am a cosmopolitan.”
today i decided that i’m tired of being White. so i put some paint on my face, stretched out my ear lobes, put on a necklace, applied my insta-dreads in a squeeze bottle, and, oh, injected myself with AIDS. so now i’m African… apparently. i didn’t even need to apply for any sort of citizenship papers or anything. i mean you can’t be a citizen of a continent, right?
seriously, tho. to all the people who think those of us who look critically at the world are morons, we’re not. i understood from the beginning what the intention of the ad was. but i don’t care for intention. people die everyday as a result of good intentions. its not the intention of our actions, but the results those actions produce that is important.
that said, let’s assume that ms. paltrow is making this claim of… solidarity… in the line of the zapatista call of todos somos zapatistas. lets. ok…. great. ms. paltrow, what are you going to do about the genocide in Darfur? The DNC? What about the economic policies of the IMF and World Bank that have furthered the systematic exploitation, colonization, and destruction of African nations, peoples, and resources? Would you care to speak about the war on the people of Algeria? Your thoughts on Dutch Royal/Shell’s destruction of Ogoni land and murdering of Ogoni peoples? The pipeline through Chad?
Ms. Paltrow, now that you are African, does this mean you will turn your back to the disproportionate number of people of color in the US who are dying of AIDS?
A statement of solidarity such as this cannot be made in one ad or even a series of ads. To do so is patronizing charity work. this may not be the intention of the ad campaign, but it is the result. if paltrow and others want to claim solidarity with the “we are all african” banner, then talk about all of Africa. AIDS is a very important issue. no doubt. but its not the only issue.
i still wouldn’t agree that it is ok for a colonizing group to all of a sudden claim membership in the colonized group, however. there is one very vital difference between this ad campaign and the zapatista call - the ad claim was initiated by non-Africans, the zapatista claim was initiated by zapatistas. one is the result of global outreach, the other of centuries of imperialist entitlement.
oh, and i didn’t realize that i was getting paid to be a jackass, but that five spot can be put in nubian’s tip jar. cuz i want to see that documentary and i believe she’s only about $9,900 away from producing it. is that right, kortney?
actually, the Kennedy flub IS an urban legend. Which surprised me, I thought it was true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_bin_ein_Berliner#.22Jelly_doughnut.22_urban_legend
There’s a buddhist saying, “I am my brother.” I understood the intent; its implementation? flawed. Truth is, humanity cannot live its name. Most of the world doesn’t care about other people, other places; unless some resource is at stake. Any oil in Darfur?
A while ago, Kenneth Cole came up wit a way to waste AIDS activism money on his lame ass “We All Have AIDS” campaign.
I swear the same ad company is putting this shit out. Lame lame lame.
Jews are african, not white.
“That ad was beyond patronizing. Here’s the deal–Gwyenneth, and Angelina, and the other people who cry over how horrible it is for people in Africa aren’t African. They aren’t the ones who have had to deal with civil war, and extreme poverty, and colonization, and racism. No, they benefit from it.”
I’m white. When I first saw this ad I got angry, but I couldn’t pinpoint the reasons for it. Sheelzebub nailed it, I think. When someone *benefits* from the suffering of others, it’s downright offensive to compare the privileged person to the people whose suffering allows for that privilege.
Sure, we’ve all got African roots. That’s in our far-off history. But more recent history shows us that quite a while after emigrating from Africa, whites started oppressing black people. Highlighting one piece of history, while ignoring another more recent piece (which has huge effects on the world today) is just dumb.
Besides the race issue, there is the celebrity issue. Rich people always want to show us how “normal” and similar to us they really are. They too buy groceries, take a shit, and are addicted to drugs, just like those poor, stupid people in Wherever.
Which Jews are you referring to? Ehud Olmert is by no means an African. I am insulted by the very notion that someone would call people from Eastern Europe
“Africans”
Well, if you want to get into Biblical technicalities, we’re Central Asians who supposedly migrated to Eastern Europe in the past couple thousand years. I don’t really see where Jews come into it though, seeing as we were discussing Gwen up there, who is not a Jew.
Question:
Say you had veto power. You could kill this ad campaign entirely, but could NOT guarantee it would be replaced with another.
Would you kill it, and give up the money?
Or would you leave it up?
Paltrow is a jew, a bottle of peroxide does not make her white and Olmerts wandering tribe eminated out of Mesopotamia– Jews have to wander for a reason.
Wandering around mesopotamia does not make one African.
Always the negro with the “wrong” opinion…
I do not find anything offensive about these ads. Your picking on one image of Paltrow when there are also black people that are part of this campaign. Shit I am African also and I’ve never been there in my entire life. What I see offensive is that many people are criticizing the ads and harping on the fact that a white woman is wearing beads are not in the trenches in Africa helping the AIDS problem there. I applaud Angelina Jolie for doing what she does. Most celebrities don’t give a shit. I’m waiting to see the majority of them (black, Brown, and White) commit a percentage of their salary every year to help or get their hands and manicures dirty, or even willing to just plain advocate. You know why, because they feel is just a problem for those “Africans”, just like many average people do. AIDS, once a gay disease, has become an “African” or “Black” disease.
The Kenneth Cole ads were right on the money. We all have AIDS, AIDS is a human problem. Its a problem that affects all of use, every where, rich, poor, any color, any continent. And the sooner people stop “Othering” people and with this disease and bickering over an ad campaign because a white person who probably had nothing personally to do with colonizing Africa and enslaving black people, DARE to volunteer her time and offer the use of her celebrity , then more can be done to either eradicate it or find some way to curbing it.
The David Bowie ad is hanging up in my cube…
BTW you should all check out the website to check out the entire campaign a
(And maybe get off of Gwenyth Paltrow) and how IMAN( an African) orchestrated the entire campaign (INCLUDING THE MAKE UP AND BEADS YOU GUYS ARE UPSET ABOUT) and got celebreties to volunteer it
www.keepachildalive.org
So if you want to blame anyone and criticize anyone, blame her, and african.
Question:
Say you had veto power. You could kill this ad campaign entirely, but could NOT guarantee it would be replaced with another.
Would you kill it, and give up the money?
Or would you leave it up?
That’s not a fair question. There can always be a different ad campaign. If the money is forfeited as a result, then those people who hold those purse strings never were speaking or acting from their hearts and never cared about Africa’s residents. If they vetoed the money, that would just reinforce that they were at least operating on part from a feeling of colonialism.
I’d rather see the faces of those who are truly in the trenches and the frontlines in Africa on these advertisements than American celebrities who might be committed but aren’t on the frontlines. What would be great and I think much more effective is to take the millions of people with HIV and AIDS in Africa and those who advocate for them and put their faces so that they don’t become just a massive number of people affected by this crisis who are faceless(as often happens with large groups of people).
Gwyneth Patrow is not African, but millions of people are and I don’t believe she needs to claim and define their identity to be empathetic and supportive of their efforts. I think she and others need to listen to them and let them tell their stories.
What is really moving is reading or watching stories of individual lives and families and how their day to day life is impacted by HIV/AIDS. About the young girl who nurses her own mother, keeps the household going and is unsure of her own future. The women who teach other women how to insist that the men they have sex with wear condoms. The medical personnel who work tirelessly to help more patients than their facilities can handle. The activists who risk their lives to get the word out that AIDs is an illness, not a crime or a moral punishment.
To me, photographs of fantasies involving celebrities dressed up in what White people perceive Africans to look like(as if Africa is one country and everyone dresses in a way that fits this perception) just doesn’t come close to being nearly as effective as reality. The belief that we think it does is part of our problem.
RadFem
So Blame Iman, you don’t appreciate her( an african and committing the unfortunate sin of being a celebrity) dressing up white people (and black people) how she saw fit to promote awareness to the African AIDS problem.
Its sad to me that for this woman, thinking she is doing something to help her country, has to deal with all the criticism that has nothing to do with helping that cause but people obsessed about her involving Gwenyth Paltrow and people telling that the beads and war paint doesn’t look how they think it should(Their ideal).
I salute this woman and the beautiful ad campaign she put together.
Btu Radfem, it is a perfectly fair question. The world is a limited place: You can often make people STOP doing things, but you can’t make them DO things.
Not to mention that from the attacks here, people seem to think the negative effect of the ad is worse than the positive effect. If that’s true, then they should support stopping the campaign entirely. If it’s NOT true, then some of the posters seem overly rhetorical.
’d rather see the faces of those who are truly in the trenches and the frontlines in Africa on these advertisements than American celebrities who might be committed but aren’t on the frontlines.
Great. Not to be snarky, but me too! I’d much rather see all the rich people give their money to all the poor people. Are we both done now?
I mean hell, don’t you think the ad company thought of that? Perhaps they thought everyone was a bit blase about the images of “those in the trenches” and thought they’d make more money with Gwyneth. Other than personal sensibility and what you’d “like to see,” what do you think the ad does for the GOAL OF THE CAMPAIGN? You know, to raise money?
There’s a reason famous people are asked to do this. The reason is that if people are NOT famous, then we usually don’t want to “listen to them and let them tell their stories.” For most people, “reading or watching stories of individual lives and families and how their day to day life is impacted by HIV/AIDS” is simply not going to happen.
So, back to my “unfair” question: Which do you want? Do you want to cancel it? Or take the benefits?
It’s a hard question. But a fair one. And it SHOULD guide our behavior. It can help us decide whether the reaction is
“what a horrible, racist, bunch of assholes who should be castigated and insulted”
or whether it should be
“good thought, bad execution, try this next time.”
And that’s an important choice, don’t you think?
I gave you the answer to my question and why I could not answer it the way that you phrased it. You gave me either A or B to choose, by threatening A if I didn’t do B. I don’t respond very well to those kind of tactics or ultimatums in general, so I chose neither, and instead came up with option C, which is a perfectly viable option and a perfectly acceptable answer to your question.
Actually, Sailorman, there are a lot of people who don’t rest their opinion on and open their pocketbook on what a celebrity does or does not do, or endorses and doesn’t endorse. A good portion of the world, I would say does not base their opinions on what American or celebrities from other countries do. I explained an alternative ad campaign to the one they offered as a response to an all or nothing question. I think it would be a good campaign and a better one. I think it would raise money, because what human beings relate to best is to see that there are faces to people and that there are many similiarities between us one on one. We all want to live, we all want our famlies to be healthy and happy. None of us want to outlive our children or leave them orphans. I don’t think you need to put a famous person on a poster and call her “African” to express that same sentiment.
I disagree with the ad campaign itself, not its intention. I do not mean disrespect to Iman, but I just disagree.
The problem I have with those who support this kind of advertising is that it is, at its core, totally cynical.
It seems to tell the world that only a celebrity willing to lower (and that is exactly the coonnotation here) her/himself to equality with an African living with AIDS will motivate the rest of us to donate a few bucks to charity.
To understand my meaning, how about turning the tables?
What if we saw a bunch of ads from people like Jon Stewart or Conan Obrien saying “I am Martin Luther King”? How about Jessica Simpson in an ad saying “I am Ghandi”?
The only way these ads make sense is if you assume saying “I am African.” is an act of modesty.
Well fuck that all to hell.
Ravenmn
But why would you consider someone claiming ” I am African ” as lowering themselves unless you consider Africans a lower class in your own mind?
Again, if we stop “Othering” Africans, and Africans with AIDS and seeing them at some Lower standard than we’d feel more compelled to give attention to the problem. If John Stewart said, “I am Martin Luther King” That would say to me he is a person that is for Civil Rights and an end to Racism. For someone to put their face to the words , ” I am African” It means to me (Whether they personally believe it or not) they don’t consider Africans and Africans with AIDS as “Those” people ” with “Their problem” By claiming to be African they are claiming the problem is also their problem. I find solidarity in the statement. Its just unfortunate no other organizing besides KeepAchildalive.org had the first hand at the ad campaign.
I mean celebrities are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If they ignored the problem and or did nothing and wanted to do nothing with soemthing like this people say they are bad, if they do something or participate in any activism people say they are bad.
Regularly everyday folks don’t have a monopoly on charity and activism. And I never read in the rule book that thats the only way chairty and activism can be legitimized.
This entire conversation is telling in itself that we are more concerned with Gwenyth Paltrow and her beads (because I guess folks here are experts on African jewelry) , that the entire problem has been ignored. No one is discussing the website, the AIDS problem, the statement Iman made about the campaign. Nothing. If anything thats where the advertising fails. Because it didn’t consider that our ability to get wrapped up in something extremely petty, based on 1 image in the ENTIRE campaign that got circulated around blogs.
I don’t believe that calling oneself African is lowering ones self or would I and I disagee with anybody that does. I just don’t think it’s necessary to show empathy or solidarity with what is going on in African nations. I’ve had similar conversations with people I’ve met and know who are from different nations in Africa and the issue of colonialism and entitlement to identify what and who is African by outsiders especially those whose peoples have colonized the continent and kidnapped its people for chattal slavery trades is a very sensitive one for many people. Looking at the histories of many of these countries, that shouldn’t be surprising. HIV/AIDS is yet another legacy of that practice.
This ad campaign has been discussed in the office where I work because our office is considering an AIDS awareness campaign in the African-American communities in my region and trying to map it out. Some of the concerns expressed here have been expressed in the meetings. There were some positive comments but overall, people were turned off by it. It wasn’t a large part of the conversation, which focused mostly on prevention.
Z, I don’t consider my concerns petty or those expressed by others here and those expressed in a similar conversation I yesterday. I certainly do not consider your argument and points petty either. I already said while I respect the intent of the campaign, I have issues with its execution.
The reason why you haven’t read the rule book is because there isn’t one, at least not one I endorse. I never made that statement. What I did present was an alternative ad campaign to an either/or else argument that I believe would be more effective. I never ever said that celebrities can not be involved in charities or said that only “everyday people” could do so. I wish more celebrities were involved. That belief doesn’t mean that I am not allowed to have misgivings about this particular endeavor nor should it.
If John Stewart said, “I am Martin Luther King” That would say to me he is a person that is for Civil Rights and an end to Racism.
Then we disagree. Radfem is saying it better: it has to do with colonialism. If you don’t see it in my first examples, you might not see it in the following, either. But I always like to try to re-state an argument once in case my words were just lousy the first time around.
In my neck of the woods, it’s American Indians who get this type of treatment. They definitely do not appreciate people dressing up in “Indian” clothes and participating in “Indian” rituals (face paint, beads) without being invited and without knowing a single thing about actual Indians living today. It is profoundly disrespectful and it trivializes the cultural meaning of beads, feathers and clothing. It is put on like a “costume” which is where they idea of “lowering oneself” plays out and why I brought it up.
that the entire problem has been ignored
There’s really no reason to conclude that. I imagine that many people who blog here have and will continue to be politically active on this issue. In fact, it’s important for we who are politically active to discuss different tactics and whether they succeed or fail. It helps us to become more effective in the future.
Ravenmn. It would make sense to me if the folks in this campaign or the creators of the campaign decided on their own to put on the beads and face paint.
However, the fact that an african woma, that I have a ton of respect for because of her activism and her pride in her blackness and Africaness, designed the campaign and stylized it to reflect a modern take on african jewlery and make-up bring it into a different context for me. The fact that I read the website and reasoning behind all the elements in the campaign and saw the entire campaign laid out didn’t give me the visceral reaction many have had in reaction this image of Gwenyth Paltrow gave. The colonialism /racism/celebrity -in-the-negative element isn’t there for me because the context I’ve been viewing this campaign in.
So I’m sure thats why I’m not seeing what others are seeing. I rarely ever do.
[…] Gwyneth Paltrow, African?i really can’t think of anything to write here […]
[…] Oh please. First Gwyenth Paltrow, and now Kate Moss. […]
[…] Oh please. First Gwyenth Paltrow, and now Kate Moss. […]
[…] The claim by many in the blogosphere is that this is yet another example of “brownface” (think “blackface” in another tint). My friends at Racialicious (formerly Mixed Media Watch), along with others (Jenn at Reappropriate and none other than the Blackademic come to mind), as well as myself (Gospelrats!) — And how could I forget this gem from Rachel? — have condemned the practice of “blackface”, “yellowface”, and “brownface” relentlessly. To be sure, this practice unnerves me deeply. There is little more disturbing to me than white people donning “ethnic” makeup for the ostensible aims of honor, entertainment, social statements, or the like. Under most circumstances, blackface and the like is surely unnecessary. […]
[…] The Shock Effect and Public Awareness Parody of an AIDS campaign Finding new ways to keep media attention on pressing yet unchanging topics is not an easy task. As more public awareness campaigns seek to be controversial, more critique is dished out. In recent news, critics have decried the tastelessness in the blackface cover of The Independent and the I am an African ads. The controversy used to elbow for the public’s attention can obscure the original intent. One LA Times journalist confused a Doctors Without Borders campaign in Paris, which distributed tents to homeless people, with tourists camping out. Another Doctors Without Borders project, Refugee Camp in the Heart of the City, just ended a US tour which visited New York City, Atlanta and Nashville. Setting up shop in a public space, the exhibit presents a tangible glimpse into the issues refugees are facing and what sort of work is being done by the organization’s volunteers. School tours and other related lectures and exhibits were scheduled during each city’s Refugee Camp. While shocking campaigns garner needed publicity, the context and educational content is often missing. Refugee Camp is a reminder of the innovative ways to interact with the public on a large scale, without the shock effect. To see what the project looked like on-site, there’s a gallery of photos from the Central Park exhibit at the Village Voice site. […]
Y’all need to stop being so damn whinny and sensitive about white people trying to be civilized. First off, black folk need to step up to the plate and make bold, ambitious campaigns to raise money to save our people from AIDS. What do you prefer? That Bono, Paltrow and others ignore black death? That they celebrate it? Are indifferent, like most black people?
Conquistadors can’t do nothing but steal and rape the truth. Now white women want to be African.. but still nobody wanna be black. Lynchin still workin out it seems
Just wondering as I am really intrigued by everyone’s reaction to this print ad….what do you all do on a daily basis to make a difference in Africa?
The point of the campain is to show everyones joint humanity. The campain shows we ALL share african DNA. Regardless of your skin color, each living human person has african roots. It’s the thing that makes us all esentially the same. Wether you like the campain or not the phrase “I Am African” has a meaning. Not only does it have meaning but it is essentially true. I know most caucasions hate the idea, sadly. But wether you like it or not…it is where life started and we are all AFRICAN. The only thing that makes us cosmetically different is environmental evolution.
I’m not sure I understand why everyone is just upset about Gwyneth and not the others who have posed for this. There are people of all nationalities posed for this so why is Gwyneth the scape goat. I don’t find it offensive in any way and if you read the website it makes sense. They are just trying to raise awareness.
I agree with Chris. Racial issues are being taken to heights over an ad. One that isn’t for corporate dollars but for dollars to help raise awareness and funds for relief. Maybe if more “skinny white girls” spoke up and represented like GP we wouldn’t find ourselves in such a state as we are today. As for the constant chants from malcontents about the past, let it be the past. Let us not forget but allow us to build without hesitation and hate in our hearts. Those who acted against us are fewer in number and none of us were alive. The racism we deal with today only effects us as we will allow it. How about we quit whining about an awareness advertisement and start crying out against true injustice.