This mailer is blatantly, flat out, no holds barred, in your face RACIST

[Rose Siding]

http://blogs.nydailynews.com/dailypolitics/archives/2006/11/so_what_are_you_1.php

via TPM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010849.php

[blogslut]

1. yep

n/t

[gfnrob]

2. Typical republofuck stuff

[uppityperson]

3. yup, doing away with pedophiles is bad. Racist though?

Not racist, but definitely nasty and bigoted.

Edited to add, I see this as holding a hand over the mouth of a about pubescent girl. Why? Family values is silencing your pubescent girls? Not my sort of family values.

[lukasahero]

26. Interesting you can "see" a "pubescent girl" but not a dark skinned hand?

White girl, black hand but you see no racism? Come on.

[demwing]

28. That's not a white guy's hand?

The color must be off on my monitor.

[lukasahero]

34. It's not white on my screen. eom

[LostinVA]

46. Nor on mine -- it's a dark-skinned male hand

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. It looks white on my screen.

But darker. Tan.

Definitely racist.

[Karenina]

94. Is THIS a white guy's FACE?

[Touchdown]

123. Your shot is over exposed. Too much light on Ford.

He has freckles, doesn't he? Where are they? The one in the OP is not. It's properly exposed. The hand is just tan.

EDIT: to add...The fleshtones on Ford in the chopper are off ( he doesn't really look like that). The fleshtones on the girl in the OP are properly balanced C/M/Y.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

129. photo is not exposed well to show true color of people in it.

that is what the point is here, not racism you accuse of. Comment is on quality of picture NOT of people in it.

[Karenina]

145. The "true colour?"

Uppity, please woik wit me hyeah. You posted a pic of you and your dad and NOW are talking about "true colours?" Have I missed something? MY POINT is that pixels, exposures, photoshop and airbrushing notwithstanding, the PERCEPTION of skin colour is what matters in America.

I saw your resemblance because I did not stop at the easy points. I CHECKED IT.

[uppityperson]

147. perception indeed matters.

you can photoshop, over/underexpose film, it changes what people look like. So, posting an overexposed picture and someone saying "see, this is a known african american and you are bad" gets my goat. And my geese. My point is that photos lie, that they are not accurate in depicting true anything necessarily of anyone. Color, shades, shadows, location, all can be manipulated. I think we agree on this.

[Karenina]

153. Thank you. You've made yourself clear.

[Touchdown]

131. Way to miss my point.

And thanks so much for calling me a freak and implying that I'm a racist because I called you a shitty photographer, and if you did these 3, you are truly a BAAAAAADDD photographer, and need to hang the camera up befoe you hurt yourself.

That's all I said. Now, I gave you a reason to hate me, which is obviously what you wanted in the first place. Glad I could help.:hi:

[Karenina]

139. I'm a musician. Don't own a camera.

:rofl: Got LOTS of reed tools, tho'!

[Touchdown]

142. I can't tune a fish. Get it?

I also sing out of tune too get my co-workers to leave my cube.:rofl:

[barb162]

187. It looks like a white woman's face (eye makeup) and dark hands

indicating a black person perhaps?

[uppityperson]

30. see my post #22 below to explain how I interpret things.

I am more apt to see mysoginism than racism.

Als see #18 for another picture of a green eyed "white" girl.

[barb162]

189. Looks like a woman re the mascara

[verse18]

4. BE AFRAID!!!

THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR WHITE WOMEN!!!!


or something of that nature.:eyes:

[NOLADEM]

5. Uh, how is it racist?????? The hand and face are both white

And the text makes reference to family values.

What are you talking about?

[blogslut]

10. what is your screen resolution?

n/t

[NOLADEM]

16. Ha...sorry....mind fart....home sick today....fixed ......

:blush:

[ecstatic]

27. lol... it looks that way to me too

but I'm working on a laptop with very high screen resolution.

[progressivebydesign]

39. The hand is dark skinned.. it' s obvious on my new monitor. n/t

[LostinVA]

47. The hand is dark-skinned n/.t

[Karenina]

97. White is relative

and completely dependent on the perspective of the white person defining it.
Let's play "SPOT THE WHITE FOLKS!"

[barb162]

188. The hand doesn't look "white" to me ; it looks like a man's hand

on the woman's face.

[sakabatou]

6. Yeah, your values of cheating, torturing

and just being plain evil.

[H2O Man]

7. Wow!

That's pretty obvious.

[Muddy75]

8. I'll play the dummy: How is it racist?

Ridiculous, over the top, fearmongering, OK. But racist? Does this mean the Dem's are a different race of people than Repubs?

Serious question - where's the racism?

A term so mis-used, so used as a weapon these days, should not be floated about and broadcast so flippantly.

[EFerrari]

9. Look again. n/t

[uppityperson]

12. I don't get the racist part either? Hint please?

thanks

[kiahzero]

14. Black hand over white woman's mouth.

Think Blazing Saddles. "Where all the white women at?"

[uppityperson]

19. Looks like a tanned hand to me.

and I put a picture of another woman that looks similar in another posting here, that girl/woman from Afghanistan in National Geographic.

[EFerrari]

23. That's what I thought, too, at first. But taken in the context and

aim of this ad, it looks very intentional to me.

[uppityperson]

25. I can see that, scaring those who want to be scared.

"See! They want to get us! See!" people.

[Irreverend IX]

134. That hand doesn't look very dark-skinned to me...

There are some darkish tones in the hand, but they look kind of artificial--like someone went over the hand a few times with the Burn tool in Photoshop to bring down the shadows. The skin of the hand has this reddish splotchy quality that the Burn tool tends to bring out. I suspect that the exposure wasn't very good on the original photo and the light levels were heavily worked up after the fact. I don't know if we should try to use this to point out racism among the GOP because as we see here, different people interpret the picture in different ways. Of course, if we can dig up the model and it turns out he's not white, it's a different story. Of course, there's not enough time now to put out a release on this ad that has any potential to affect the election, so it's a moot point.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. But it's clearly a white hand!

The skin tones of face and hand are more or less identical!

I'm afraid I think those calling racism are motivated by the desire to have a stick to beat the GOP with that they're not looking at this one objectively. There are all sorts of reasons to object to this advert, but that the hand is black is not one of them.

[Bluebear]

40. "The skin tones of face and hand are more or less identical!"

Maybe on YOUR monitor!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

44. *Yes*, on my monitor.

I'm sorry for not stealing someone else's monitor to look at them on...

I will say, though, that both of them look fairly standard Caucasian skin tone to me, and so I'm guessing that this is about the colour they're intended to be at, and that I wouldn't expect adjusting anything about it to make them appear noticeably different to one another given how similar they are on my monitor.

I will also say that if you think that whoever commissioned this advert was stupid enough to deliberately display a black hand over a white mouth, racist or not, then you're really stretching my credulity, especially given that as the add is about "family values", and the similarity of the skin tones, I suspect they're meant to suggest that they're related.

[Bluebear]

52. OK, I don't mean to stretch your credibility!

(Cripes, touchy!)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

57. Whoops... Malapropism fixed, sorry.

NT.

[Marie26]

74. "They're meant to suggest that they're related?"

How's that again? Can you please explain to me what the non-racist message is of this picture? How does the picture display "family values?"

[uppityperson]

80. I saw it as abuse your daughter, or maybe your young wife.

how's that for repub family values? (I cleaned up my language before posting this)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

85. The whole point is that it *doesn't* display family values, of course.

The idea I guess it's trying to set up is of a family about as far from "family values" as possible, with the message "this is what the Democrats will do to the family".

*Any* message it has must ipse facto be non-racist, or at least very subtle, given that all those portrayed are white.

[Karenina]

93. Like all those in THIS pic?

OOPS!!! There DOES seem to be a black person or so somewhere here... :evilgrin:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

95. What picture is that?

Where is it from, what is it of, and what's the background to it?

[Karenina]

98. BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

99. Thank you for your polite and helpful answer.

I'm not entirely clear what point you're trying to make, but as far as I can tell it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the picture the OP was getting so worked up about is clearly in no way, shape or form even slightly racist.

[Karenina]

101. Spot the BLACK guy, Donald.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

106. What the hell are you talking about?

You showed me, first, a picture of a bunch of soldiers, most of whom were white and one of whom was black, with someone who looks like he's probably a politician in the middle, and secondly a picture of what looks like three white men in some kind of jeep.

Absent the knowledge of what they depict or where they come from, there's nothing especially remarkable about these - taking photos of or mostly of white people isn't racist. There may be something about the context that makes them interesting, but if so I don't have a clue what it is.

If you have a point, I suggest you make it.

[Hav]

109. .

Does Harold Ford Jr. ring a bell? He's our candidate for the Senate in TN.
And he is in the photo you described as showing 3 white people. Ford happens to be an African American.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

111. Fair enough.

And the other one - do you know if some/all of the "white" soldiers in that one are also african-American (I've given up on getting any sense or civility out of the person who posted it, I'm afraid)? Do you have any idea what the point it's trying to make is?

[Hav]

114. .

Concerning the picture with the soldiers, the one you spotted as a politician in the middle is Ford again. At least I'm quite sure it's him, the photo isn't the best.

I think the poster wanted to point out that not all coloured people are really dark. Ford is an African American who is pretty light skinned if that is the correct description. Yet it's visible.
Many here thought that the hand in the pic of the OP could just as well be from a white guy. I disagree here. It's not really a dark tone but in my opinion it was definitely not a white guy.

[Karenina]

151. Yet it's visible. According to you.

Donald in his innocence DID NOT register it. (Verzeihen Sie mir, Donald. Du hast rechts. Ich bin zickig.)

What I am SINCERELY trying to "flesh out" :rofl: on this thread is the matter of our collective PERCEPTIONS. DEFINITELY NOT WHITE in your estimation. Then U.P. chimes in:

which goes to show that how one describes oneself and what looks like in picture can be different. White, black, in between. American, African American, etc American, etc etc etc.

I am not white, but pinkish brown. The guys in that picture all look similar in skin color in that picture. I describe myself 1 way, but could describe myself many other ways. American. Euro-american. Perhaps even IndianAmerican. However, my skin color is similar to all those in that vehicle.

SO WHICH IS IT KIDS???? :shrug: Harold Ford is depicted in ads as the boogeyman in the woodpile lusting after WHITE WOMEN. Touchdown accuses ME of being a photographer who "overexposed him." :rofl: I tell you what... If Harold impregnates a blonde, white woman we likely be seeing a towhead kid. :rofl:

[uppityperson]

154. check out post #149 for more on the picture also.

ps, I don't know who Harold Ford is, haven't seen ads, in another part of country, so I have no idea who he is. check out the origin of the picture downthread. Family values=abuse.

[uppityperson]

113. which goes to show that how one describes oneself and what looks like in picture

can be different. White, black, in between. American, African American, etc American, etc etc etc.

I am not white, but pinkish brown. The guys in that picture all look similar in skin color in that picture. I describe myself 1 way, but could describe myself many other ways. American. Euro-american. Perhaps even IndianAmerican. However, my skin color is similar to all those in that vehicle (jeep or helicopter I can't tell. Want to make fun of me for that also?)

Describe these 2 people for me please.

[Hav]

117. .

I don't disagree with your point.
But I didn't make fun of anyone. Neither did I mock the poster who apparently hadn't seen a picture of Ford before (he's from England) nor did I jest about anyone's colour.

[uppityperson]

118. True, sorry

responded too fast, should've put that into response for other poster. You are polite and responding with information, not mocking. I apologize. And thanks for your responses.

[Karenina]

110. ONE of whom was black!!!!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Quantess]

140. possible subliminal messages of this ad:

They suggest it has someting to o with "family values", so...

This blue eyed young woman will be seduced by a dark-complected lesbian, and they will marry.
This blue eyed woman will get impregnated by an illegal immigrant, and will get an abortion.

I'm struggling with this. It's so vague and open ended, it's designed for you to insert your own fear ___________.

[Karenina]

157. This may help...

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/winant.htm

Howard Winant sees the present racial order in North America as consisting of a set of conflicting "racial projects." Each of these projects has an ideology based upon a unique understanding of the "meaning" of race. Each project also has a resultant political agenda.

Project 1: The Far Right

Ideology: Represents race in terms of inherent, natural characteristics; rights and privileges assigned accordingly; traditional far right operates through terror; renovated far right organizes whites politically.

Agenda: Open racial conflict; equality seen as a subversion of the "natural order"; the state is in the hands of the "race mixers." Whites need to form their own organizations and pressure the state for "white rights."

Project 2: New Right

Ideology: Understands racial mobilization as a threat to "traditional values"; perceives racial meanings and identities as operating "subtextually"; engages in racial "coding"; articulates class and gender interests as racial.

Agenda: Racial conflict focuses on the state; racial (in)equality determined by access to state institutions and relative political power.

more at link: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/winant.htm

[uppityperson]

158. family values include incest?

keeping it between a frightened youngish female and elder hard werkin' pa? Look down@ post 148 and responses for the origin of this photo. Abuse.

[LostinVA]

51. Not on kine, either -- as plain as day

Brown hand, white girl.

[ecstatic]

42. looks white to me too, but now I wonder if they meant for it to look Mexican? nt

[PrimeRibGuy]

201. That is what I thought too

This is the oddest thread that I have ever seen

[cwydro]

17. I'm not seeing it either

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

20. It may be your monitor. The hand over this woman's face

is much darker than she is.

It's funny because I didn't catch it when I first looked either -- the bondage aspect caught my attention. Then someone on another thread pointed out the racist appeal.

[uppityperson]

22. I guess I am used to people being all sorts of shades associating together

we have several shades in my family and I don't notice variations. Some of us are darker, some lighter, some work outside, some inside. I see this more as a laborer's hand covering the mouth of a young woman/older girl, silencing her. Mysoginistic more than racist. Interesting.

Edited to add picture of a couple of us in my family, father and 1 daughter. Interesting, eh?

[EFerrari]

24. Me, too and my family, too.

On edit: The traffic in women is alive and well in 2006 :(

[Fleshdancer]

15. the brown male hand covering the white female face?

:shrug:

[LostinVA]

50. It's racist because it IS racist

A dark-skinned male hand over a white girl's mouth, fear in her eyes? Come on -- that's not racist? Of course it is. Evil black man wants the white wimmen. Classic.

And, of course you know most African-Americans vote Dem... why are you trying to deny that?

[BruceMcF]

62. Ah, but as you can see from discussion here, deniability ...

... they were very careful not to have the man's hand be too dark, so that if someone blows the whistle, they can claim that they can't see what's racist about it.

Forcing the SOBs to try to pitch their racist appeals as a dog whistle is, I guess, an improvement, but even better would be to have it fall flat.

[Karenina]

100. Bruce gets it.

Pssst... Bruce! Ya think this guy is too dark for Tennessee??

[Touchdown]

125. Jeez, you need photography class!

Nobody has fleshtones like that, and I've never seeen a real sky look like Oz in Technicolor.

Your 3 examples so far don't make your case, because you don't have a grasp of color balance, fleshtones or white balance, and are not as good a photographer as the one who did the OP.

Show me a pro portrait of Ford, then we'll talk.

[Karenina]

161. Touchdown, your immediate assumption

that I took these pictures is telling. I am not on the same continent as Harold Ford. I DO NOT own a camera. However, my nearly 6 decades have indeed given me a grasp of color balance, fleshtones AND white balance. I remember the Crayola "flesh" crayon.

I have nothing to show you, nor have I ANY desire to talk to you.

[uppityperson]

167. ewww, I remember "flesh" crayons and being appalled.

wtf is "flesh"? "blood" is more generic to all, but even that differs.

[Muddy75]

63. I held my hand next to the one in the ad. My skin colour matches

almost exactly.

I am German. Doesn't get much more 'white' than that does it?


To all the people saying "check your monitor!", well maybe the people making mountains out of mole-hills need to check their monitor?

In my opinion there are many valid reasons to despise and campaign against the repubs. This isn't one. If anything some of the responses and 'crying wolf' on this thread will be used as ammo against us.

[Catherine Vincent]

64. It's there. You just don't see it.

Sorry.

[cwydro]

76. I don't see it either

my sister's skin tone is much darker than mine, so is my father's...I don't see a black hand. I just don't.

[Catherine Vincent]

83. You're not supposed to "see" a black hand.

You're supposed to "think" it's a black hand.

[uppityperson]

86. subliminal. Not blatant, but subliminal indeed.

supposed to see all sorts of things here. Too bad what I see, in conjunction with "family values" makes me think "ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, I will never vote for them"

[Catherine Vincent]

90. Don't you mean "subliminable"?

:rofl:

[uppityperson]

92. sublime perhaps, but no, subliminal.

anal me, checked dictionary also.

[Catherine Vincent]

119. I wasn't trying to correct you.

I was trying to talk like GWBush. Remember the flub he made in 2000? It was one of the first of many. :)

[uppityperson]

120. fool me once, shame on you

:rofl:

[Karenina]

102. Hey Cwydro! Wanna play SPOT THE BLACK FACE?

[H2O Man]

138. Karenina,

are you behaving?

[Karenina]

163. NOT!

:evilgrin:

[Karenina]

164. Actually, Waterman

I have to laugh hysterically and be utterly snarky to...

[H2O Man]

199. It is amusing

to read the posts of those who sincerely do not see what the ad purposely contains.

[H2O Man]

202. You better ....

[cwydro]

203. Be as condescending and snarky as you want.

I'm not going to say I see something I don't just because you're passing out the koolaid. I don't see things in racial terms like you do. (And I know who Harold Ford is).
We did a little unoffical poll here at work about that ad...interestingly, the white co-workers were split on the color of the hand, the black co-workers said it was NOT a black hand. WHatever that might mean. Interesting.

Why do you think you can't just discuss things in a civil manner?

[Karenina]

208. Not seeing things in racial terms

is your lifelong privilege. Interesting outcome to your poll at the office. Was the text included on the picture your co-workers saw or did you use the stock photo? Did you discuss it further? Curious about your thoughts.

Have I been uncivil? MOI??? :evilfrown: I really AM a nice kid. O8)

[cwydro]

210. yes, I included the text of the ad

and yes we all discussed it. There was some speculation that it was meant to represent a "terrorist" hand. Some said perhaps Mexican (at this point we were TRYING to see it as racist). The main thing that none of us could understand is what the hell it was supposed to convey. Most of us women saw it as the RW talking about how girls might have the right NOT to tell their parents about abortion. The RWer in the office said that he thought it referred to the Dems taking away parental rights:eyes: ... go figure that one out. At any rate, I think it is a stupid ad...typical of the RW. BTW, I never said it wasn't MEANT to be rascist, just that I did not see it as such. I do think it is portraying Dems as a threat and I guess one would pick their own particular threat. We all agreed that the RW would use race if it could get away with it. No discussion there....
Just a little sensitive lately about some of the ugliness and piling on that people seem to do here so much lately, therefore my comment re civility. Here's hoping for victory today, fellow DUer!:hi:

[Karenina]

211. Thanx for your response!

I think you hit the nail on the head with:

"I do think it is portraying Dems as a threat and I guess one would pick their own particular threat."

In advertising terms, this is an EXCELLENT, EFFECTIVE AD for the targeted demographic for that reason alone.

Would you be so kind to join me in lighting a candle for a Democratic Congress and SUBPOENA POWER??? :hi:

[cwydro]

212. HELL YEAH baby!

I feel really positive about today, I really do!:toast:

[w13rd0]

11. Not only is it racist...

...but the flipside text is HOPELESSLY vague. I guess it's part of their "coded language". Liberal is code for "promoting the interests of black, gay, atheist, white-woman-raping marxists" or somesuch nonsense.

[Marie26]

13. It's like "Willie Horton" all over again.

When in doubt, go back to a classic.

[uppityperson]

18. here is a picture of another woman who looks like this one.

goes hand in hand with antimysoginistic family values I am out to destroy. Still don't get the "rascism" part though. Are democrats a race?

[EFerrari]

21. In the sick and twisted logic of racists, yes, Democrats represent

"race".

[progressivebydesign]

41. No, the hand is dark skinned, against a light skinned woman's mouth. n/t

[H2O Man]

29. The responses on this thread

are interesting. I'll start by saying that I am confident that everyone is sincere, no matter if they see the ad as racist or not. I think it is worth remembering that the ad isn't aimed at open-minded democrats or progressives. It's directed at a specific audience. And it uses a specific form of communication.

It reminds me of President Bush speaking. He uses dozens of "code words" that the general public doesn't necessarily pick up on. But to the rabid conservative christians, it is a signal. They understand the code. A specific message is communicated to them.

Likewise, there are going to be a lot of people who look at this ad, and think little of it. But to the target audience, it communicates in a very specific code: the black male hand symbolizes violent crime, the wide-eyed white female face represents victimhood. The ad does not intend to convince democrats or younger people in general to vote for republicans. It is aimed at older republicans, a group that has a very high rate of voting in mid-term elections, and a group that is fed up with Iraq.

[uppityperson]

31. I agree with you. Scare those wanting to be scared.

Aimed at the right group, is racist and scary and reminding them that they need to vote to keep their girls safe from all us wide eyed libruls who want nothing more than to have those nasty dark skinned folks to come and hurt them.

[rosesaylavee]

204. You are right. The visual code in this case

is fear of rape - image implying that this white girl will be raped by a black male.

Wonder if some of the posters NOT seeing it were born after 1980? Older DUers may see this based on how crazy it used to be.

Things are better than they used to be ... just not there yet.

[Sugar Smack]

32. HOLY FUCKING SHIT! Where the FUCK did America go????

:grr: :nuke: This is disgusting.

[ecstatic]

33. Is this an anti-abortion-due-to-rape ad?

It looks like the girl is terrified and about to be raped.

How exactly does this ad tie into "family values?"

Is it because if she gets pregnant from the rapist, she might want to get an abortion and Democrats want to keep abortions safe and legal?

:shrug:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

56. If she's a rich Republican girl

Daddy will arrange for her to be "sent away" for a safe abortion. :grr:

[demwing]

35. I'm also seeing some sort of writing reflected in the eyes

can anyone zoom in on it?

[Lurking Dem]

36. There is less skin color difference

there than between me and my husband.

[LostinVA]

53. Not on my monitor -- there's a significant difference n/t

[Lurking Dem]

59. There is a significant difference

between me and my husband but we're both Caucasian Jews. He is much more Semitic looking than me even though I am Sephardic descent and he is Ashkenazic.

[Karenina]

103. Tell me about the differences here...

;-) :evilgrin: ;-)

[uppityperson]

105. I'll try playing

Been watching this topic, see that you have posted same couple pictures a couple times. This picture shows 3 people, all look male to me due to haircuts, jaw lines, though 1 on right could be female. Middle one looks older. All have pretty fair skin. How'd I do?

How about this picture, what can you tell me about them?:

[Karenina]

115. On YOUR picture, look at the shape

and the spacing of the eyes. Kinda hard to see unless you're paying attention with the glasses and all.

"all look male to me due to haircuts, jaw lines, though 1 on right could be female." NOW YOU STOP THAT, U.P. :spank::rofl::spank::rofl:

What's your take on this woman's colour?

[uppityperson]

116. grey, what do you mean, "shape and spacing of eyes"

2 eye each. Not sure what your point is. And the woman in your picture above is definetly grey. Or maybe gray. Hard to tell. Probably not greye.

(And thank you for no comments about 1970 fashions)

[Karenina]

166. What I was saying is I saw a resemblance

in the eyes, the windows to the soul. Thanks for the grey comment.

[uppityperson]

169. my eldest sibling tells me

I have become quite like my father. In some ways this is good, in others quite scary. A very good person but stubborn? Opinionated? Me? Naw.

[Karenina]

193. Yeah, she's kinda grey in that photo

but so is the guy! HIS RIGHT HAND IS OVEREXPOSED!!! Look at his LEFT HAND!

[progressivebydesign]

38. That is EXTREMELY racist!

If anyone believes that the GOP did this dark skinned hand on a light skinned woman's face (which is showing fear) just to share some diversity, is clueless. NOTHING they do is by accident. NOTHING. Nothing. This is absolutely engineered to be racist. Since when did the GOP start aiming for diversity in their ads? Those people ought to be in prison.

[Catherine Vincent]

43. This saddens me.

I think it's going for the anti-immigration crowd. Why couldn't they use a very pale hand just so no questions would be asked?

I think I'm goanna send this to Keith Olbermann.

[Bluebear]

54. And given the male hand a little manicure!

Sloppy! :)

[Catherine Vincent]

65. I thought about that too.

If you're going to do a closeup of a hand like that, attempt to make it attractive at least.

[Megahurtz]

67. Maybe the darker hand is

supposed to represent Middle Eastern Terra-ists.:shrug:

[Balbus]

45. I'm not seeing it either...

And I've looked at it on two different computers. But I guess if you want to see a black hand covering a white woman's face you can. Or it could be a latino hand covering an Iraqi face. I guess it's all in what you're looking for.

[Bluebear]

58. Maybe it's not a black hand. It's an ISLAMOFASCIST!!!

[uppityperson]

77. or this woman's face. I see misogynistic "family values" instead

[Pacifist Patriot]

48. When the Democrats gain control of Congress I sure as hell hope...

they destroy the GOP values. Thank you, but misogyny, racism, homophobia, fiscal irresponsibility, war mongering, greed and corruption are values I can do without.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

55. Oh noes!

Vote Democratic and the brown people will prevent us from imposing our morals on everyone!

[Scriptor Ignotus]

60. Hey, where the white women at?

(apologies to the Howard Stern Show, Mel Brooks and Cleavon Little)

[ismnotwasm]

61. Disgusting

Young white woman under attack, eyes wide, held with apparent force, hand darker than face--Certainly could be racist, but subtle enough--like much racism-- to make it a question rather than a certainly as evidenced by comments I've been reading.
Racism exists. Racism and fear of the other is used constantly and with very good effect. I will always error on the side that it's a racist commentary catering to white votes. I have never been given reason to believe otherwise. Ever.

I live in the world-- I didn't make it and I damn sure will call bullshit on racist ads even if the original intent was NOT racist. Shades of white skin color--so what? Deep and sometimes not so deep in the sub-conscience of many whites is fear, disdain and sometimes hatred of dark skin. And/Or a smug sense of superiority. Either way, to combat racism is to confront it head on each and every time. Even in my white self. Especially in my white self.

If the hand was two shades darker, would there STILL be an argument on whether the ad was racist or not?

I won't even get into what I consider gratuitous misogyny in the ad.

[slestak]

66. How the hell is this racist?

My wife and I are both caucasian. She is fair, and I have a darker complexion. If the two of us posed for this pic, it would look the same as this one.

What makes the picture isn't the darkness of the hand, it's the contrast of the hand against the face. Not to mention that most of the buzzwords used as veiled racist messages ("crime", "terrorism") are absent.

Honestly, you folks are really reaching here. There are enough reasons to hate Republicans without having to make them up.

And before anyone asks, I'm looking at this on a fairly new 21" Sony Trinitron monitor that is color-calibrated (I'm a graphic designer).

[Lurking Dem]

68. I'm using an Apple 23" flat panel

and there is far less difference in their skin tones than in mine and my husband's.

I am more concerned by the "BOO!" message of the ad.

[slestak]

79. Me too.

"Vote Republican or YOU'RE GONNA GET MUGGED!"

Lolz.

[Marie26]

70. It's pure code.

They even skipped the buzzwords. Yeah, people are different skin colors, but why would Republicans choose these particular shades for the ad? Why does the white woman look so afraid? What does anthing in this picture have to do w/"Family values?" Nothing. If you remove the code, the ad makes absolutely no sense at all. And Republicans aren't in the business of spending big money on an ad that doesn't speak to their constitutents. This ad appeals to the REAL reasons that people vote Republican, & it does it in such a way that unbiased viewers won't even notice the coded message. This is the message: "If you don't vote Repuke, the brown people will come after your women, and silence your race." It's the real racist message behind those political code words like "Law & order", "Willie Horton", etc. It's an old Republican standby.

[Catherine Vincent]

73. Thanks Marie, for that thorough explanation to those that don't see it.

[slestak]

78. Sorry. Still don't see it.

I have no doubt that race-baiting is alive and well in the GOP, but I just don't see it here. Just looks like a crappy ad made out of a crappy stock photo.

The difference in skin tone is far from obvious. Not everyone in the KKK is as white as their sheets, ya know.

[Karenina]

104. "The difference in skin tone is far from obvious."

[uppityperson]

107. you seem upset that some of us can't see much difference between people

in OP. Why? That is a serious question because I don't get your point. Thanks.

[Karenina]

124. My point is a very serious one, my dearest Uppity

particularly to those of us who have labored under the "skin tone" caste system for our entire lives. Thank you VERY MUCH for picking up on it and ASKING. :hug:

What this ad shows is that "race," particularly in the U.S. is defined by white people. When the towers fell and New Yorkers volunteered for the clean-up, Puerto Ricans, bi-racials, Greeks and Italians (that I know of, I'm certain there were more) were ID'ed by WHITE cops as middle eastern, harassed and humiliated. The slightest differential in skin colour signals to them: OTHER. NO NUANCE. THAT is what the ad was about and YES, it is subtle.

The reason I posted Harold's pix was that HE is identified by EVERYONE IN ANERICA as BLACK. Now do go back and look at DIR's posts. Somehow minus the blah-blah, just looking at the guy, he TOTALLY MISSED IT. I'm NOT saying that's a bad thing, indeed I wish it were more the norm.

This is a very complicated and sensitive topic for me personally as in my family we range from a Nigerian to Nordic. I wonder if you or anyone will be able to ID the picture of the woman I posted... She was my cousin.

[uppityperson]

128. picture I posted several times is

my father and me. Yes, "race" is subjective, determined differently by different people and yes, this ad is subtle, sublimininalal even. Who is "white" who isn't? I used to put "3-legged" under race column, more recently write "human". Have been accused of missing color in people, guess growing up in a mixed skin color household I consider most normal. And yes, he has been extra-searched since 911, to the amazement of us kids. Is he Danish/Polish as the story goes, or Danish/East Indian as rumor has it? What am I? Northern European? Human? Uppity? Now, back to look at your cousin. Peace.

[Pithlet]

159. It's not that you don't see the difference.

It's that you're being very condescending and belittling to those that do. They're seeing a different picture because they aren't looking at it as rationally as you are. They want to see something that isn't really there. They're imagining the difference. That is the message you seem to be conveying in this thread. If that isn't your point, then you may want to clarify what you're saying, and concede that others may be seeing something that *you're* not.

Sorry, but I very clearly see a very noticeably darker skinned hand covering up a white woman's mouth. And with the history of the GOP, I don't think it's even close to irrational to read between the lines and know what they're trying to do with this ad. They made the difference in color just perceptible enough so people with racist tendencies will catch it, but not contrast it to the degree so they could play the "You just want to see the racism" card. But, even if it wasn't so glaringly obvious, I think that given the GOP's history, I certainly could understand how others would still interpret it that way. It's an awful ad, and I think we should leave them to defend it.

[uppityperson]

165. sorry if you take me to be condescending and belittling, not meant.

I see a different thing than others do. We each see something different. My first take was this was promoting misogynism. That is what I saw. I have said that I can see how this could be interpreted as racist and that it seems subtle to me, subliminal even since my first and main perception is that of a scared looking female with a "working man's" hand over her mouth. That is what I see. I can see this being taken as rasist, especially aimed toward those who are looking for a reason to be scared of someone of a different race (though we all be human race).

What is glaringly obvious to ME (me, as I see it, not meaning to belittle anyone who sees differently or be condescending but stating what I see) is that it is a scared female with a larger hand over her mouth. I was glad to see the origin of this stock photo being that since that is what struck me first.

As far as defending it, I think it is a crap ad meant to provide evidence that one should be scared to those who want to be scared.

Again, sorry if you take my opinions to be condescending as they are not meant that way. I see what I see and will defend what I see as what I see. But I can also understand how others can see it differently. It is an awful ad, makes no sense to me no matter what because of what "values" they seem to be saying will be taken away if dems get in power (racism, sexism, etcism)

[Pithlet]

174. It isn't how you personally see it that bothered me.

I think that your initial interpretation is a very valid one. I also see the misogynistic tones as well. It just seems as though you're also saying that people who see a non-caucasian hand are mistaken. You seem to be implying that those who see a color difference are only imagining it is there because of some bias. I don't think you intend to belittle or condescend, but that point of view does come across that way. I didn't want to seem accusatory, but it's hard to point that out without seeming so, and I apologize.

[uppityperson]

175. I have found that I assume things, racist and sexist and agist things.

initial first glance got me on all 3 things. Then I made myself stuff the visceral emotional response and look at it otherwise. Yes, it gets an emotional response that is negative. I guess I expect people to realize that, then step back and think with their minds, but also know that the people this is aimed at don't do that a lot.

[Pithlet]

185. The thing is

The people who look at this ad and see it differently are thinking as well. They may not interpret it the same way you do, but that doesn't mean they aren't thoughtful in their interpretation, and that there isn't something to it. For instance, I happen to agree with the people who think it is racist, and I'll even admit that it was my initial reaction from the start. But, I thought about it before posting. I've looked at it forwards and back, and have considered all the angles.

There are two factors that I cannot overlook in coming to my conclusion. Factor one is that the two skin colors are noticeably different, and that the darker skin is on the person being conveyed as the oppressor. I don't think it's my screen, because I have four computers with four different monitors at my immediate disposal; two laptops that are a differing brand, a PC desktop with a CRT monitor, and an Macintosh with a flat screen monitor. I obviously see a color difference on all of them. That, and the fact that so many others are also seeing a difference leads me to believe that I'm not seeing things. Factor two is that the GOP overwhelmingly attracts the racists, and they know it. It is a significant part of their base. Given those, at the very least, I can see how people easily draw this conclusion. After some thought, I've decided that I agree with them. Calling the GOP out on the racism of this ad is not at all far fetched.

[uppityperson]

194. people think differently from each other indeed

nasty ad, no matter what

[Marie26]

121. It's not supposed to be obvious

Someone mentioned above about how the hand was unattractive & unmanicured. It's supposed to be that way, cause it's scarier that way. A callus-free, manicured hand suggests someone from the upper class; while the pictured hand suggests someone who is working-class/poor; a manual laborer. The hand is unmistakenly male, & the woman is clearly frightened. What's important in these ads is the connotations, not the explicit message. It's not the image itself, but what the image is intended to suggest. People have suggested that this ad is targeted towards African-Americans, but I'm more inclined to think it's aimed at representing Mexican immigrants or Arab terrorists. Republicans constantly aim to polarize "us" and "them." The woman in this ad represents the white middle-class "US", threatened by lower-class minority "THEM". If we elect Democrats, the ad says, THEY will come into power. It's class warfare, racial warfare, classic Rove polarization. I just can't see why people can't see it, but to each their own, I guess.

And even beyond the racial connotations, the ad explicitly shows a scared woman w/a hand clamped over her mouth, and that's pretty disturbing in itself. The picture has nothing to do w/the supposed text about "protecting our values, etc." Instead, it sends a completely different, very clear message - fear fear fear the other.

[Ms. Toad]

130. Don't know that I see the race issue

But the class issue/us against them was my immediate reaction - a manual laborer with grease stained hands and damaged fingernails attacking a manicured, wealthier female.

[Marie26]

207. It's a Rorschach test

I find this thread facinating. Each person has a completely different interpretation, based on their own background, history, race, etc. That photo is so vague & open-ended, it practically lets the viewer read into it whatever they wish. For the audience that this is intended to reach (Republicans), it seems to be aimed at inspiring an emotion of fear, that WE (white, upper-class, Rep.) are vulernable & under attack from THEM (minorities, poor, Dem.)

But what's even more interesting is the photo they chose to give that message - it's actually a photo of domestic abuse. While the text crows about how "family values" are under attack by the "outsiders", the photo actually shows a woman being attacked by an "insider" - husband, family member, partriachical figure, Republican. There's a real subversive message that underlies the blatant message they're trying to send their constitutents - you should fear US, because WE are trying to silence and surpress you. They told the truth, w/o even knowing it.

[Thickasabrick]

91. Bravo....excellent post. I don't understand what it means but I don't

see the racism here.

[boolean]

69. Forget about the racist implications...WHAT FUCKING VALUES do they have?

"Our values will be destroyed"????

Tell me, repuglican pigs, what fucking values you have. Give me ONE value you asshats have. This shit makes me SO angry. :grr:

[Rocknrule]

71. Reminds me of this:

http://whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/grandma.asp

[LTR]

72. I guess that's what Laura Bush was referring to...

...when she said that it is easy to manipulate one's feelings.

Yeah, I'll say.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

75. I can't believe it! SUBLIMINAL racism has hit the campaign trail

How long did the ad-writers experiment with the skin tones of fake attacker and fake victim?

IMO, if the attacker had the skin tone of Seal or Bokeem Woodbine, the conscious minds of the vast majority of ad-viewers would notice. But the contrast we see now definitely is sufficient to convey a subliminal race message in almost all of us, though not enough for many of us to notice with our conscious minds.

Willie Horton has come a long way in 18 years.

[EdwardM]

81. So is that Mark Foley's hand there?

What exactly is "our values?" And what does the this have to do with government anyways? Republicans have no issues so they have to make up this "moral value" crap that has no place in government to get elected.

[uppityperson]

82. omg, you just called me on something with this comment

I was assuming that greeneyed person was female when could be a young male.

Good comments by the way. Seems like this is just a "boo!" scare picture with words that mean nothing except to those ready to be scared.

[Ms. Toad]

132. Not likely, given the mascara...

(if the image was of a young male wearing mascara I doubt the family values would be so worried about him)

[uppityperson]

136. you haven't met UPjr and his friends.

mascara is the least of it. But no drugs alcohol tobacco stealing grafitiing pregnancy suicide. So, mascara? shrug. How about this take on the picture (wild take) mascara'd male who works at laborer job, holding hand over mouth since laborer job will be taken away by them illegals? (on second thought, never mind, doesn't work with values destroyed since the rich repubs will still be making money off the backs of common poorly paid laborers. Or maybe it works. hmmm. off to think more.)

[Ms. Toad]

144. I've met lots of young males who wear mascara

and quite a few older ones, as well. I just don't think they would be the poster child chosen by the family values crowd for this particular shot - they'd probably be cheering whoever was taking the young mascarad male away in terror.

[Maestro]

84. I can't tell what color that hand is but it doesn't look

very white. The subliminal message is there. Anyhow, my question to these fuckers is which values will be destroyed?

1) The value of hypocrisy
2) The value of corruption
3) The value of arrogant, mysogynistic, ultra talibanevangelism
4) The value of help the rich, damn the poor.
5) The value of...

Oh to hell with it. Damn straight your values will be destroyed!

[Karenina]

108. Can you tell the colour

of the face on the right? :rofl::evilgrin::rofl:
(PLEASE hold me up here, Maestro! My farkin sides hurt!!! :rofl: )

[Ms. Toad]

126. That would be a much fairer question

if the face on the right weren't so overexposed in comparison with large portions of the other two. As it is, its sort of like asking if the color of the hand (similarly overexposed) on the middle person is the same color as his face.

[Karenina]

180. Ms. Toad, the overexposure is NOT the point.

It's the PERCEPTION, the LAYMAN'S PERCEPTION upon seeing a picture. Donald Ian upthread saw 3 WHITE GUYS, which I KNEW he would and was exactly why I goaded him.

An Amurikkkan so inclined would NOT SEE the actual SKIN TONE, rather the colouration around the cuticles. It's a subtle signal, but quite sufficient.

[Ms. Toad]

186. Without the overexposure

he might not have seen three white guys. The overexposure has the effect of lightening skin. The guy on the right, because that portion of the photograph is overexposed, looks much lighter than the other two. Without the overexposure, who knows. My comment was not directed to technical expertise of the photographer, but the impact the technical problem created with respect to using that particular photograph as a perception test for subtle skin tone differences.

[Karenina]

190. Please relate your observations back

to the colouration around the cuticles in the ad and see if your test applies.

[Ms. Toad]

192. I didn't comment on the ad.

I was commenting on your repeated posting of and inquiry about a photograph in which the image of the Black man is severely overexposed relative to the faces of his two companions, to the point that his complexion is appears lighter than the complexion of the two white men. Whether it is lighter or similar in reality I don't know, but the impression created by the overexposure is of a lighter complexion. A reaction to that photograph is not a fair test of anyone's personal bias.

[Rosemary2205]

87. This discussion is just more proof that

racial labels are bullshit.

Black? White? Tanned? Asian? Indian? Who knows?

Still a stupid ass ad.

[Lurking Dem]

88. THIS ad is racist.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2593494&mesg_id=2593494

[mmonk]

89. What's the proper screen resolution?

On mine, I really can't tell and if you didn't tell me, I would have thought the hand was caucasian. I would like to see it as it's supposed to look.

[KingFlorez]

96. edit

[Hav]

112. .

I can't know what other people see on their monitors but I also think it's appealing to the racists and it's pretty disgusting. No way is this the hand of a white guy.
Another poster made a very good point already that this is not about family values. This is a racist scare ad hidden behind a slogan to divert from the blatant racism.

[Touchdown]

122. It's a white hand, and my screen is calibrated for Photography.

It's even a stretch to say it's a very light skinned black man's hand.

Calibrated by Spyder 2 Pro last Friday.

[meisje]

135. Well DU'ers base there desicions on emotions, not facts thank you very much!

[Touchdown]

133. I posted the shot in the Photo group.

We'll get my comrades take on it, in a day or so.

[JeffR]

197. Here's my take, Touchdown, FWIW

As manipulative as the ad clearly is, it's classist, not racist. That's a greasy white hand and that to me - in tandem with the rest of the content - is still calculatedly reprehensible. If it were an African-American hand, I'd be as appalled as many who have posted on this thread. But it isn't. I have a high-end monitor which I've calibrated carefully, and recalibrate periodically to make sure it stays accurate over time. Anyone seeing the hand as a non-white hand should do a proper calibration, or get a better monitor.

My take.

ON EDIT: Looking at some of the posts above, some people seem to think because they have expensive and/or brand new monitors that what they're seeing is accurate. Putting aside the fact that the pic is a scanned hardcopy printout of a photo that did no justice to anyone's skin tones, it's naive to assume that just because one has forked out a lot of money for a monitor that it is anywhere near accurate. It's all in the calibration, always.

SECOND EDIT: There is also a discussion upthread about monitor resolution. That, of course, has nothing to do with this issue at all.:eyes:

[ecstatic]

137. I asked 3 different black males what race they thought the hands belonged to

They all thought (as I did) that the hands were white.

But this just goes to illustrate the brilliance of the ad: Many blacks and people of color will look at the ad and assume its another white hand. Thus, the creator of the picture is off the hook as far as calls of racism originating from blacks.

On the other hand, many whites will look at the picture and, for whatever reasons, see nonwhite hands (some will see black, some will see brown as in Hispanic or Middle Eastern).

[LisaL]

171. It's not black. Could be Hispanic or Middle Eastern.

It's just a little bit darker than a face.

[Iris]

141. But what I'd really like to know is, how can a politican destroy your values?

I mean, there YOUR values. No one can take them away from you. You might become enlightened along life's path and YOU might change your values, but a government can't do that to you unless you let it.

[1932]

143. It's a variation of racist add NC Republican ran in senate race in '90s

Black hand holding back a white man's arm.

Racist.

[electron_blue]

146. Check out the return address on the ad: 315 State Street.

Gads, talk about being obvious.

Racist ad or not, the only party I see wanting to muffle/silence young girls is the GOP with their attack on abortion rights and birth control.

[mindfulNJ]

148. For what it's worth...

this is a stock photo that was bought at a stock agency that I also work for. It wasn't shot specifically for this purpose:

Here's the shot as it appears originally:


To me the hand looks the same race as the woman.

[electron_blue]

149. Looks like a domestic abuse shot. Wth is the GOP ad's point?

[mindfulNJ]

152. that's EXACTLY what it's aim was

I don't have any idea what the GOP's point was.

[uppityperson]

150. LOOK AT THIS POST, stock photo "abuse"! too funny, too sad

here is the properties of photo, spaces inserted to not show photo but info:
http:// www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2090996/2/ istockphoto_2090996_abuse.jpg

Edited to add, I went to main istockphoto website, did search for "abuse" and got this page. Go to the link, put your mouse over the picture and read what it says.
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=abuse&x=17&y=10

[Marie26]

155. This is something

This is the actual webpage of the photo w/more info: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/who/emotions/anger/2090996_abuse.php?id=2090996


Photographer's Description:
A woman with a big hand over her mouth looking scared.


This file appears in:

WHO > Emotions > Anger
WHO > Emotions > Fear
WHO > Emotions > Sadness
WHO > Facial Expressions > Fear
WHO > Facial Expressions > Sadness
WHO > People Specific Attributes > Body Parts > Hands
WHAT > Health and Beauty > Medical Concepts > Ailments > Disabilities > Mental Disabilities > Mental Breakdowns
WHAT > Health and Beauty > Medical Concepts > Ailments > Disabilities > Mental Disabilities > Phobias > Nyctophobia (Fear of Darkness)
WHAT > Life > Family Life
WHAT > Society > Crime and Criminals > Crimes > Assault

Keywords:

abduct
abuse
afraid
alone
anger
assault
attack
batter
constrain
control
crazy
crime
dark
domestic
dread
family
fear
force
frightened
grip
hand
harass
harassment
hold
illness

I'm inclined to agree with you. This ad says a whole lot more about Republican "family values" than they really intended to.

[Pithlet]

162. It doesn't to me.

That is a darker hand. There is enough of a color difference that the message is clear.

[rosesaylavee]

205. Typically people of

darker skin do not have green or blue eyes.

[BrightKnight]

156. intentional, ugly and not very subtle

No professional photographer or ad agency would have missed that.

THe image was Photoshopped like everything else that goes to press. Color correction and everything else is always very carefully controlled.

They are clearly trying to send a racist message. People of color will silence and suffocate you if they take power. Be afraid! Be very afraid!

THey were trying to be a little subtle about it. It is about as subtle as a heard of elephants can be.

[Pithlet]

160. Horribly racist.

I clearly see the darker hand covering the white woman's mouth. That ad would be bad enough without the color difference, but with it? There is no excuse for this. But it doesn't surprise me. The GOP is the party of racists.

[Redstone]

168. There is NO QUESTION that's a black man's hand. UTTERLY racist.

And you know I'm not one who is prone to seeing things that aren't there.

Redstone

[LisaL]

170. That hand looks white to me.

So, there is a question.

[Redstone]

177. Compare it with the original; there's a link. It's darker on the mailer.

Redstone

[LisaL]

181. They might have darkened the hand. It's obviously not from a

black model.

[Pithlet]

196. I don't see how anyone can determine what race the model is or isn't.

The only think I can determine with certainty is the hand is darker than the face.

[uppityperson]

172. did you see the subthread starting #148?

where the photo came from. Whatever they are trying to do or say or show or scare, it is disgusting.

[Redstone]

176. They darkened that hand. It's lighter in the original. I use Photoshop 6 hours

a day on average, and I could do it in ten minutes.

Redstone

[uppityperson]

178. that they did.

"family values" Edited to add, goodnight for tonight, am going away. Good luck with tomorrow.

[Redstone]

184. Good luck to us all tomorrow. Sweet dreams.

Redstone

[mindfulNJ]

182. If it is darker

and I agree..it's easy to do in PS...it was NOT done or implied by the photographer who shot this photo. I know this for a fact. This was shot as a domestic abuse shot.

[Redstone]

183. I never said anything about the original photographer.

Redstone

[tinfoil tiaras]

173. ugh, thats discusting

of course, the hand holding the WHITE girl has to be DARK... :roll:

[Ediacara]

179. Holy guacamole! But why are her pupils square?

[Wednesdays]

191. Regardless of the color of the hand

This ad screams, "The Democrats are gonna rape our daughters!" :eyes:

[neebob]

195. I can see how it's racist

but how does it say family values are under attack? They must have that kooky incorrigible GA who picks out a bunch of pictures that don't convey the message, and this was the least weird one. It's confusing and stupid - especially if you know they cropped a wedding ring out of the photo. Like there aren't millions of stock photos with unmistakable families in them.

[Karenina]

198. It's "code." This may help decode it.

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/winant.htm

Howard Winant sees the present racial order in North America as consisting of a set of conflicting "racial projects." Each of these projects has an ideology based upon a unique understanding of the "meaning" of race. Each project also has a resultant political agenda.

Project 1: The Far Right

Ideology: Represents race in terms of inherent, natural characteristics; rights and privileges assigned accordingly; traditional far right operates through terror; renovated far right organizes whites politically.

Agenda: Open racial conflict; equality seen as a subversion of the "natural order"; the state is in the hands of the "race mixers." Whites need to form their own organizations and pressure the state for "white rights."

Project 2: New Right

Ideology: Understands racial mobilization as a threat to "traditional values"; perceives racial meanings and identities as operating "subtextually"; engages in racial "coding"; articulates class and gender interests as racial.

Agenda: Racial conflict focuses on the state; racial (in)equality determined by access to state institutions and relative political power.

more at link: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/winant.htm

[Nikki Stone1]

200. The colors aren't obvious on my monitor either--but the GENDERS are

A very gendered ad. "We are female, we are vulnerable to attack."

The color difference would increase the offensiveness of the ad, but the gendering is already offensive.

[Lurking Dem]

206. I STILL see a white hand

over a white woman's mouth.

The ad freaks me out because it is saying that Democrats will ruin America, abuse its citizens, and silence their opposition.

The ad I consider racist is the mailer from Corker which was quite blatant. But as someone who has been a frequent victim of bigotry, I don't think I am immune to subtlety.

[superconnected]

209. It looks like a mans hand and a Tan hand - Arab (terrorist)

as if they are using Islam to quell the womans speach- hence it's saying terrorists will win if you vote dem. It's of course calling all arabs terrorists and all islamic people terrorists.

That's how I interpret it.

It doesn't look black to me but it does look intentionally tan.

You can't see the rest of her face, they likely did cut off a hijib, or want you to subconsciously believe shes wearing one. I believe there's nothing accidental about this photo.

[Swede]

213. Oh yuck!

Dirty,dirty pool.