Your Turn: 200 Pounds Of Attitude

How do you read this nyt.com image, featuring this frame from a Universal Studios ad? (Warning: if you notice any parallel here with any content or theme that has appeared on this site in the past week or so, you’re probably hallucinating.)
Black woman, dark black woman squeezes her children to her chest on a ride at a park. It looks almost theater-like. There are no safety bars.
She looks exceptionally excited, scared. She is making sure not to get her nails involved in the action, holding them out, keeping them from breaking, or chipping, one would assume to be her intent.
While most faces seem to be having a good time, this woman is so scared that she is full-out screaming or yelling, and hiding her children’s eyes. Aside from the token brown face in the far right, everyone behind this woman is White. And laughing.
There is so much space around this woman that she almost seems to be the object of the delight of those behind her.
This is a stereotype. The excitable, emotional and thus primitive black.
As discussed in yesterday’s discussion thread, to what extent can white liberals (especially males) even competently relate to this issue?
We will all read through a lens. The lens is shaped by our lives and the conditions that make up our lives. It is shaped by the messages we ingest through our choice of reading, schools, teachers, TV, radio, advertisements, our parents, and our peers.
In general, the extent the White Male will see images like this competently is questionable, depending on what exact male it is, what life situation, and what they have read and who they have known, and how closely.
The problem with being in touch with the undercurrents of racism, and what is called “internal colonization” (when the ruling class is not separated from the colonies, or colonized peoples by geographical space or cities-to-villages, so heirarchy is expressed through less direct means, through constant messages, memes, or laws favoring one race or type over another, or through enforcers and persecuters of laws who choose some types or races over others to investigate and prosecute more harshly, etc, etc) is that the White man is not really aware of all this. He can’t be, by definition. He is the priviliged, the one who is taken seriously, who is assumed innocent, who is preferred by myriad ways and means in this culture. On one level he does not want to think about it, or the past history of his people because it is ugly. For another, he has no real motivation to do so, normally.
There is a huge mindwashing that goes on constantly in American culture, for one dramatic and garish example, how there is always a black face or a violent black crime being reported in the paper at all times. Doesn’t matter how many crimes are being committed, and there are lots at all times, by all types of all “collars”—if you pay attention consciously, you will always see a black face in the news. I paid attention to this in the city. So I mean the paper. not the blogs. And there are so many reinforcers of certain memes (Mexicans as lazy, as thieving, as knife-wielding, as gangbangers, etc is another set) that you can hardly find where they are propagated. It’s a fine mesh, over time, and coming at you on many levels. Lately, it’s kicking into gear again, and you will notice more and more stories, for one example, of Mexican criminals, roundups, felonies, shootings, etc, etc. You know the feel when you relate it to the Iraq war, or any war. It’s a message machine always running.
The only way to see through the weave of hypnogrip is to search for it purposefully, or to have it smack into you. That hurts. So you notice. You notice everytime someone assumes something, or the ratio of faces that do not look like yours in every magazine, or TV show, or who gets hired, or who gets shot, or who gets called what. You notice when this site or that commenter or that person in the grocery line is talking about Mexicans with pure hate, or the things they are advocating. You think of your abuelita or your bisabuela, and you wonder if these White Americans would kill your family, given the chance. You notice when this sentiment, if not these exact phrases, is validated by major sources, articles, and laws. Once again. Because it’s all you’ve ever heard. All your life. On TV, movie roles, jokes. After all that time, it’s what half of your own mind threatens to believe about yourself. You are definitly sensitized to it.
Those who are not White; those who are brown in this society notice all the messages, and all the unfairness. That is why they are sometimes deemed “hypersensitive” by some of these “Conservative White Males” as you put it.
The Conservative White man, or those who aren’t in the mood to be conscious, will often say “racism is over.” That’s all long ago. I don’t see any racism now. Not in the country, not in the papers, not in the laws, not in the non-response to N’orleans.
Why don’t they see any racism? Because you know what? They are being sincere. They just dont’ see it. IT doesn’t smack into them. How could they notice it?
That is what is tough about a White Conservative or White male, analyzing anything like that. You know? They just don’t have the training. They are too often, hypnotized still. It would be very hard to just understand all at once. Even to those who are brown and are “whitewashed” over time—lose their history and understanding of their culture and the truth of their race and culture’s history—are “Americanized,” disconnected to their history, good at saying pledges and repeating American Propaganda, and who are eventually willing to speak out against their people, bring harm to their own people, turn their back on them, leave them to their own fate, lose touch with them, think like Whites—even these people (“Uncle Toms” or “Alberto Gonzales’ or “Michelle Malkins’) would have a journey as they learned to “unsee” the White Memes that they have repeated for so long. Like a bird raised by a beaver, these wayward avian creatures would be trying to chew wood on their own.
How on earth could a White Conservative Male suddenly be able to see past what has been his point of view for so long?
Would it make any difference if these advertising accounts were in the hands of black ad people, or even black-owned agencies?
I think it depends on the owner, on the people. But in general, I’d say there’d be a better chance of it. I mean at least the treatment of the image. I don’t think a black-owned agencies (and I mean funded by blacks, not just managed and forced into various agendas by those with the purse) would want to use the black woman all alone in the theater, space around her like stank and an ocean of laughing white faces to make any point. Or at least not to make the one this one makes.
What does make the gregarious, heavy set black women such a cultural icon?
You know…I’m not sure what this means. Do you mean Aunt Jemima? Oprah? I don’t get it. Are heavyset black women cultural Icons? I’m sure there’s a lot more I could learn about it. Perhaps some other commenters can answer that one better.

…There is a huge mindwashing that goes on constantly in American culture, for one dramatic and garish example, how there is always a black face or a violent black crime being reported in the paper at all times. Doesn’t matter how many crimes are being committed, and there are lots at all times, by all types of all “collars”—if you pay attention consciously, you will always see a black face in the news. I paid attention to this in the city. So I mean the paper. not the blogs. And there are so many reinforcers of certain memes (Mexicans as lazy, as thieving, as knife-wielding, as gangbangers, etc is another set) that you can hardly find where they are propagated. It’s a fine mesh, over time, and coming at you on many levels. Lately, it’s kicking into gear again, and you will notice more and more stories, for one example, of Mexican criminals, roundups, felonies, shootings, etc, etc. You know the feel when you relate it to the Iraq war, or any war. It’s a message machine always running.
The only way to see through the weave of hypnogrip is to search for it purposefully, or to have it smack into you. That hurts. So you notice. You notice everytime someone assumes something, or the ratio of faces that do not look like yours in every magazine, or TV show, or who gets hired, or who gets shot, or who gets called what. You notice when this site or that commenter or that person in the grocery line is talking about Mexicans with pure hate, or the things they are advocating. You think of your abuelita or your bisabuela, and you wonder if these White Americans would kill your family, given the chance. You notice when this sentiment, if not these exact phrases, is validated by major sources, articles, and laws. Once again. Because it’s all you’ve ever heard. All your life. On TV, movie roles, jokes. After all that time, it’s what half of your own mind threatens to believe about yourself. You are definitly sensitized to it.
Those who are not White; those who are brown in this society notice all the messages, and all the unfairness. That is why they are sometimes deemed “hypersensitive” by some of these “Conservative White Males” as you put it.
The Conservative White man, or those who aren’t in the mood to be conscious, will often say “racism is over.” That’s all long ago. I don’t see any racism now. Not in the country, not in the papers, not in the laws, not in the non-response to N’orleans.
Why don’t they see any racism? Because you know what? They are being sincere. They just dont’ see it. IT doesn’t smack into them. How could they notice it?
That is what is tough about a White Conservative or White male, analyzing anything like that. You know? They just don’t have the training. They are too often, hypnotized still. It would be very hard to just understand all at once. Even to those who are brown and are “whitewashed” over time—lose their history and understanding of their culture and the truth of their race and culture’s history—are “Americanized,” disconnected to their history, good at saying pledges and repeating American Propaganda, and who are eventually willing to speak out against their people, bring harm to their own people, turn their back on them, leave them to their own fate, lose touch with them, think like Whites—even these people (“Uncle Toms” or “Alberto Gonzales’ or “Michelle Malkins’) would have a journey as they learned to “unsee” the White Memes that they have repeated for so long. Like a bird raised by a beaver, these wayward avian creatures would be trying to chew wood on their own.
How on earth could a White Conservative Male suddenly be able to see past what has been his point of view for so long?
Would it make any difference if these advertising accounts were in the hands of black ad people, or even black-owned agencies?
I think it depends on the owner, on the people. But in general, I’d say there’d be a better chance of it. I mean at least the treatment of the image. I don’t think a black-owned agencies (and I mean funded by blacks, not just managed and forced into various agendas by those with the purse) would want to use the black woman all alone in the theater, space around her like stank and an ocean of laughing white faces to make any point. Or at least not to make the one this one makes.
What does make the gregarious, heavy set black women such a cultural icon?
You know…I’m not sure what this means. Do you mean Aunt Jemima? Oprah? I don’t get it. Are heavyset black women cultural Icons? I’m sure there’s a lot more I could learn about it. Perhaps some other commenters can answer that one better.

wow. please delete that redundant comment for me? the page only showed half so i repasted the latter half. feel free to delete this one too. sorry!

All people in advertising are quickly drawn “types” so the product can be sold in the least possible time, and I think this typing of people is very fertile ground for examination, and I can’t say I’ve done a lot of thinking about it. I take the types as they come – stupid white guys, impossibly good-looking older women, irritating younger wives outwitting their husbands, rich executives, scruffy younger guys who are hip, etc. One thing I consistantly notice, tho, is the wealthy-looking houses every one of these people seem to live in. To watch advertising, you’d think everybody in the USofA is making $150 grand a year. THAT bugs me. So I guess my beef with advertising is related to “class” rather than “race”.

The following may be both obvious and naive.
Aunt Jemima with “tude.”
http://adage.com/century/icon07.html
Who grew out of black-face.
The world knew her as “Aunt Jemima” but her given name was Nancy Green. The famous Aunt Jemima recipe was not her recipe but she became the advertising world’s first living trademark. Miss Green was born a slave in Montgomery County, Kentucky. Chris Rutt, a newspaperman, and Charles Underwood bought the Pearl Milling Company and had the original idea of developing and packaging a ready-mixed, self-rising pancake flour. To survive in a highly competitive business, the men needed an image for their product.
In 1889, Rutt attended a vaudeville show where he heard a catchy tune called “Aunt Jemima” sung by a blackface performer who was wearing an apron and bandanna headband. He decided to call their pancake flour “Aunt Jemima”. Later, Rutt and Underwood were so short of capital funds that they were broke. In 1890, they sold the formula to the R. T. Davis Milling Company. Mr. Davis began looking for a Negro woman to employ as a living trademark for his product, and he found Nancy Green in Chicago. She was 56 years old. The Aunt Jemima Pancake Mix was introduced in St. Joseph, Missouri.
“1933: For the Chicago World’s Fair in 1933, the advertising planners decided to bring the Aunt Jemima character back to life. They hired Anna Robinson, described as a large, gregarious woman with the face of an angel. She traveled the country promoting Aunt Jemima until her death in 1951.”
See Also:
http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/1287/Nancy_Green_the_original_Aunt_Jemima
See Also:
Or Hattie McDaniels
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/mptv/1097/Mptv/1097/14235_0001.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=McDaniel,%20Hattie

As opposed to the increased numbers of overweight black women?
I mean, how is this any worse than the chubby dumb white husband schtick?

mdhatter asks a good question: “I mean, how is this any worse than the chubby dumb white husband schtick?” Well, for one thing those chubby, dumb, white guys that appear in ads and sitcoms all have slim, attractive, competent wives. White men are privileged because they don’t aren’t judged as harshly by their race, weight and appearance the way women and non-whites are. The stereotyped African-American women discussed here are usually shown without a spouse; or–if there is one–he’s meek and henpecked. Both husband and wife are desexualized. I found the claim by the ad agency executives in the Times’ article (in reference to the actress in the Dairy Queen ads) that “We didn’t specifically cast for a black woman. We said, ‘Wow, she’s really funny.’ And she happened to be black,” disingenuous to the extreme. They never would have cast an overweight, middle-aged white woman to sell Dairy Queen, even if she was “really funny.” Overweight white women inspire disgust in white men and overweight African-American are figures of humor and ridicule to them. That’s what’s so offensive about these ads–it’s the white contempt that underlies them.

In contrast to the population in general, advertising models are almost always anorectically thin. This flies in the face of what one would expect if advertisers were trying to show people “just like us” using their products. This thread notes how unusual it is to see overweight consumers in ads, even though 59% of Americans are overweight. The question we are currently raising is whether advertisers usually show white women as being unusually thin, but black women as being exceptionally obese. While advertising, and the Bag concentrates on perception, it is important to keep reality in the back of one’s mind. The reality is that 57% of white women and 78% of black women are overweight (BMI >25), 30% of white women and 50% of black women are obese (BMI >30). Does the contrast between white and black models in ads show bias on the part of the advertisers, or has their research shown that blacks imagine themselves more realistically than whites?
see http://www.obesity.org/subs/fastfacts/Obesity_Minority_Pop.shtml for stats on obesity rates in the US stratified by race

The comments of Nezua-Limón Xoloquinta-Jonez above, are excellent, and well thought out.
One thought about Aunt Jemimah as a black female icon: I am old enought to remember the original, and she was an example of the warm-hearted, gentle, loyal, acquiescent servant who worked in the kitchen all day, preparing delicious food. The modern version who replaced her was an independent, strong woman who was equal, politically, to her employers; she not their slave.
Now, we have an image of a black woman as hysterical, aggressive, loud, “in your face” and an object of ridicule.
What is reality, though, is that many single black woman are hardworking, stressed from childrearing, and abandoned, in many cases by the father of her children. And, in spite of that, able to bring up their children with emphasis on achieving something in life. Where are the images of black men which could present a positive role model of responsibility for young black males? I think that
we are seeing what Lillian Smith and Eldridge Cleaver described 40 years ago: antagonism of white women towards black women, and white male fear of black males.

Psychology suggests that humor arises from surprise. Humans laugh at the simultaneous perception of two things that are incongruous. Take, for example, a classic newspaper headline: “Prostitutes appeal to Pope.” We laugh because the word “appeal” has two meanings and for a moment, the brain doesn’t know which to interpret (and because one of the interpretations involves sex). We also laugh when something familiar is twisted in unexpected ways. When Homer Simpson comments to Bart, “Just because I don’t care doesn’t mean I don’t understand,” we laugh because something familiar and trite, a platitude, has been twisted, reversed.
The goal of a punchline is to deliver this unexpected twist which leads to new insight. We laugh at the very clever. We laugh when people tell the truth unexpectedly. The experience is one of liberation.
Humor also involves emotion. According to Freud, humor arises because humans experience unconscious conflicts which give rise to anxiety. We laugh as a way of discharging some of that anxiety (cathexis). You don’t have to buy Freud to see that an important aspect of humor is its association with the forbidden: sex, death, hierarchies, fear, violence, aggression, taboos, belonging, social norms and expectations. We also laugh when pretension, illusion, power or pomp is punctured (all lawyer jokes fall in this category.)
Perspective is an important part of what we find funny. Effective humor causes us to feel happy, accepted and expansive, and it bonds us together. We laugh at our foibles and shared common human experience. We laugh because humor has punctured illusion and power, and this liberates us. On the other hand, some “humor” is ugly and aggressive. It involves the denigration and humiliation of others: dumb blonde jokes, homosexual jokes, ethnic or racial jokes, dirty jokes, jokes that involve putting down or hurting others–the purpose of this humor is to reinforce power and privilege. The effect is to narrow perspective.
So what is funny in this image? Is it funny because it denigrates fat black and women–is the viewer laughing AT her and feeling superior or is it funny because it establishes a human bond? I view this as sympathetic humor: The viewer identifies with her because she represents an outsider, and she expresses our true reaction in a frightening situation, terror. It is liberating to hear the truth.
Why is the gregarious, heavy-set black woman such an American cultural icon? On one level, I think it has to do with archetypes that transcend our particular cultural moment: If you ignore gender and race for a moment, “Big & heavy” communicates power, confidence and fullness of life, of appetite. “Gregarious” communicates infectious good humor–a willingness to speak the truth and a generous love for all. Other manifestations of this archetype are laughing Buddha, Dionysus, auspicious Ganesh, Falstaff, the court jester. That this archetype has taken the form of a black woman in our specific culture could be a function of Christianity: The black Madonna, the pre-Christian earth mother, has tremendous power.
In addition, white, fit and male remain the implicit norms in our society. Black, fat, female represents the complete opposite. If Freud was correct, we feel anxiety about the powerful, about fitting in, about keeping norms. So we laugh because this icon (fat, black, female) breaks all the norms and in her reaction speaks the truth, the thing that is forbidden by the situation. She liberates us, and we feel affection because her person and response gives us insight and individual expression.

All this talk of mind control and such with no mention of Advertising. The nature of Advertising is to be broad, off the mark, insulting, and phony. Foisted upon the american consciousness at every constant opportunity, from freeways, from the radio, television, Christ i worked at a place that just streamed commercials straight into my brain through a wire. I still have a scar from the implant.
If you compare the above image to any other piece of advertising you will see all the same shit as usual: A bunch of people getting paid to make stupid faces in order to sell the idea that a product will make you feel something, anything. You can hear these guys getting yelled at by the director by just looking at the picture. There’s no unity of vision here. It’s not like this is somebody’s art film. These are people who need money. They couldn’t give a taco bell crap about universal studios.
If we read past the surreal “screaming in your face” of it all (no, she does not look scared) the big question is what kind of world do we live in where such bad acting earns you a living? I’m looking at you, Black Woman and White Guy on the Left. Man, if this does not just look like a steaming pile of bullshit to you right off the bat it is a good sign you’ve seen a few too many commercials in your life.
I do feel for those kids though. They are earning their money, oh yes. They are the only ones not “acting.”

Wow. So many great comments on such a great topic.
Just to raise the focus up from the image a bit to what i call the “social direction of advertising and celebrity”: Advertising/Celebrity drive our society’s direction way more that it follows the lead.
This is a huge discussion but i will try to snap it down to the essence:
(bear in mind, i don’t have data, or great links to back this up. Just me, a few friends and some bitter attitudes!)
The status quo – can be read historically as white males but now must be broadened to males with money (usually white, but really no longer a race issue if your behind a new Lexus) – insists on telling the people what is EXPECTED of them. I am a comic. A white male comic. I attempt to do some intelligent socially relevant material. Do i have a shot? Maybe. Does an intellecual ethnic comic have a chance? Not in this lifetime. Not to make it mainstream. Who are our “intellectual” ethnic comics that make it big? The last great was Pryor; emerging from a brief and aborted moment of social awakening. Mencia? Chapelle? These are the two current top dogs in big time comedy. And while there is no doubt Chappelle is the far more talented, both are essentially pantomiming step’n'fetch buffoons put in their place of celebrity by the Powers for two reasons: a) to REINFORCE the primitive behavior of the ethnic performer as a mockery of their own race and b) to TELL any ethnic comic who wants to make it big that THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT.
Chris Rock is as close to a white Bill Maher or Stewart or Lewis Black or Will Durst or on and on of the slew of intelligent high profile WHITE social comics. However, he too, serves more often in holding up the stereotype rather that destroying it.
Just as in the rap game, the tv/movie star game…WE will reward you if you serve as a role model in reinforcing the primitive mindset of the blacks, hispanics, etc.
Do not doubt that this manufacturing of culture is very real and very purposeful.
Bringing this back to the immediate discussion of the picture from the Times. This could be lifted from any Chapelle sketch and we would all be raving about how great it is.
(i suspect tons of fury in attacking Chapelle and Rock as contemporary Amos’n'Andy’s but Spike Lee’s ‘Bamboozled’ is closer to the truth than anyone can believe.)
peace
boxcar

Boxcar, I loved what you had to say. Yeah, and I saw Bamboozled before it was released, I was in an NYU film student pre-screening. Brutal movie. Harsh. I mean good. I also have some negative critique, but when you reach as hard as Lee does, you are bound to miss here and there. You are right: “Do not doubt this manufacturing of culture is very real and very purposeful.”
Chris rock does strain the boundaries sometimes, but he is also the least “embraced” by mainstream for doing so.
I’d only add one thing:
The status quo – can be read historically as white males but now must be broadened to males with money (usually white, but really no longer a race issue if your behind a new Lexus)
…until you drive into the wrong part of town and the cops wonder what the F you’re doing in a Lexus.

If you ignore gender and race for a moment, “Big & heavy” communicates power, confidence and fullness of life, of appetite.
Haha! Yeah….and if you ignore blue, green is yellow.

Nezua-Limon
I admit the Lexus comment was glib and expouses my white boy glossing of racism.
However, i believe the next great course is, as has been stated above by others, “class-ism” will be replacing “racism”.
Michael Jordon getting lost is in a way different place than another – even a poor white boy.
peace
boxcar

Like N-LX-J, I could write six pages on this subject but with a different slant. I sure hope some of our black women readers will jump in here.
1. Southern soul food is very rich in fats, salt etc., as is most foods that make up the diets of poor families. They have to make the best of what foods they can afford.
2. I understand from my friends that a plump rump is somewhat to be admired by black men. Further, there doesn’t seem to be the overwhelming preference among average black men for skinny women who resemble young boys. At least outside of the big media cities.
3. A black woman is not as threatening as a black man to the white man. A fat black woman even less so.
4. Who is the ad aimed at? And here we can make reference to the ads appearing on all the sitcoms. From what I’ve heard (someone jump in here) they are aimed at young males, mostly single, who live on takeout food and drive-thrus. They want THEIR women to be skinny and beautiful. A fat white woman, esp. if young, would be seen as too repulsive for their fantasies; therefore the product would be repulsive by inference.
I’m still trying to figure out why black male actors in drag bothers me more than the stupid white guys acting stupid. I don’t remember seeing Cosby or Dick Gregory in drag. It just seems unnecessarily demeaning. And loud screaming black women seems to be another stereotype from the likes of the Springer shows. Do you suppose that is what gives the ad agencies the idea that this will fly?
Someone mentioned that white women resent black women and perhaps using a fat black woman bypasses this (and is probably cheaper). I’m not sure that is any more true than the reverse. And one of my friends assures me that racism in the black community is just as vibrant as in the white. However, we have the recent example of a fat black Star of TV who lost a lot of weight by a nonoperation and got fired.
Maybe the only way to wipe out racism is to have that nuclear conflagration and everybody who’s left will have to procreate with each other regardless of race. C’mon, hasn’t anyone else noticed that the children of mixed race couples are inordinately beautiful??

I don’t mean to derail here, but I did want to address something Marysz said above: “…for one thing those chubby, dumb, white guys that appear in ads and sitcoms all have slim, attractive, competent wives.”

I would, in general, agree. I’m pretty weary of the chubby schlemiel-husband characters (perhaps it hits too close to home, but that’s immaterial here). But what has always struck me is that those slim, attractive, competent wives are, as like as not, harpies, shrews, and harridans (take your pick). I still haven’t decided which I find more troubling.

Cactus: “Maybe the only way to wipe out racism is to have that nuclear conflagration and everybody who’s left will have to procreate with each other regardless of race.”
I don’t think we need a nuclear conflagration to encourage interracial breeding–it’s happening spontaneously already.
But, alas, humans being what we are, we’ll just figure out some other dimension on which to discriminate our in-groups from their out-groups. At least, that’s my gloomy view.
But I’d be willing to bet that humor in that distance world will still be embodied by fat, jolly people who defy the dominant cultural norm.

But I’d be willing to bet that humor in that distance world will still be embodied by fat, jolly people who defy the dominant cultural norm.
Santa Claus, anyone?

Whether this is a stereotyped image is arguable, but it’s a far way from the looters vs. shoppers sterotyping of a year ago.
just saying.

I think to a large extent we’ve fallen into a trap, as evidenced by the posts/comments on this topic.
By and large I think people travel in the direction they are looking and see that which they expect to find.
Unfortunately, I think this puts black Americans in something of a no-win.
Urban/ethnic/black comedians are a great example. If they go intellectual they’re perceived as sellouts, Uncle Toms, “selling out to the Man.” If they go the opposite direction they are seen as caricatures, “step-n- fetch it” clowns, reinforcing the very stereotypes they claim to be fighting.
Depict young wafer thin African American women in advertisements
and you are selling an unrealistic unattainable fantasy image that most African American women (actually most women regardless of race)can nevr compete with. Feature larger, more realistic African American women in your advertisements, your perpetuating an “Aunt Jemima sterotype”.
Throw up your hands and simply don’t feature an African Americam Woman in your advertisement at all, now your discriminating.
I may be completely out of whack on this (liberal white male that I am), but I’ve always sensed a huge chasm between cultural perceptions of black women and black men, especially young black men.
Most mass media representations of Arican American women have historically, from my perspective, been positive. To a large degree African American women truly embody American ideals: strength in the face of hardship, independence, loyalty, motherhood, humor, perseverance, family structure, a lack of self conscious overly prissy affect, and a “do not fuck with me if you know what is good for you” attitude”.
I think the woman in the picture featured exhibits all of these attributes. She looks strong, protective of her family, happy, having fun, unafraid, expressive and comfortable with herself. She is taking her children out for a day of fun and escape, persevering in spite of it all,
her children are also clearly enjoying themselves.
I think Americans have always gravitated toward strength and indpendence, mixed with humor and community. Thats what this particular media stereotype represents
roll with it, enjoy it, love it…..it represnts someone genuine and real and strong in a nation that has sadly come to lack these qualities.

The DQ Blizzard ad is quick-paced, hip, and (I think) pretty funny, at least the first go-round. The female passenger who gets the luggage dropped on her head twice has great comic style. I kind of wonder if this might be part of DQ trying to make it look like the whole “MooLatte” thing was intentional.

Snowfear: You make an excellent point–that media portrayals of African-Americans are a no-win situation. Whatever image is portrayed, someone else can criticize it as offensive. Those of us in the dominant culture have to be careful because African-Americans are a minority population (only 15% of the total population) and historically marginalized/exploited through the perpetuation of derogatory stereotypes.
Stereotypes are social categories, and humans are cognitively wired to do categorization quickly, unconsciously and automatically. Most of the time, stereotypes–as social cognition–are more or less accurate and adaptive. The problems arise when stereotypes are derogatory, false and unfair and used to dehumanize and subjugate individuals in a specific group. What we have been discussing in this thread is whether the image portrayed here is 1) a derogatory stereotype (inaccurate, derogatory) imposed by the dominant culture, 2) an accurate representation or 3) whatever. This deliberate self-monitoring task, as you rightly point out, is complicated.
I am also surprised, that 33 comments in, no one (my earlier comments included) has mentioned that the punchline in this ad is a classic slapstick routine: “smothered in her big breasts.” Boob jokes are primitive, but they make people laugh.