KFC Pulls "Racist" Australian TV spot

Well, that's what I said very early on -- if you get why the ad was pulled, what's the problem?

As far as I can tell, the problems are:

Snood's "blind spot" comment (I agree with Robert there).

My "purely" and "probably." ("Purely" has been discussed, and "probably" was a hedge because I don't know for sure whether or not there are West Indians who were offended, BUT I don't think that the American fried-chicken paradigm applies.)

The video people being upset (?). (Video people are gonna be upset about much any issue one can muster -- people will get upset, and with your analogy you seem to understand why Americans would be upset even if they "shouldn't" be.)


Those seem kinda weak hooks for all the indignation I've seen.

This points to something which conditions this discussion, even if people haven't been thinking about it. In my conversations with other Americans (and Canadians, for that matter), i have become aware of an attitude which is indicative of a huge blind spot with regard to Australia.

People in North America (many people, and in my anecdotal experience, most people) simply don't understand the part of the world Australia inhabits, and its place in that world. Most people seem to think that Australia drifts along in some separate dream world, unconnected to the rest of the world and its realities.

Australia is, itself, a dominant power in its region. Australia is fully engaged in the realities and problems of Papua-New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, the Fijis--i suspect that most Americans and Canadians are not even aware of the governmental crises which have occurred in the Solomons, Tonga and the Fijis in the last decade. Australia also cannot ignore Indonesia. You can get in your ocean-going power boat, leave Port Darwin, and make landfall in Indonesia within a couple of days. You can fly there in under two hours. Indonesia is the largest predominantly Muslim nation on the face of the earth. Allow me to reinforce that signal fact--the Muslim population of Indonesia exceeds the Muslim population of the entire Middle East/North African littoral from Iran to Morrocco. The population of Indonesia is now greater than the population of the United States was at the time of the Second World War, and is five times greater than the population of Australia. Nevertheless, for the time being at least, Australia is the dominant military power in the region, which is why they remain engaged with the Solomons, Papua-New Guinea, Tonga, the Fijis, and, of course, Indonesia.

The eastern-most island of Indonesia is Timor. Timor was previously a Portuguese colony, but Indonesia rushed in when Portugal left. Indonesia is predominantly a Muslim nation, but the population of Timor was then, and remains, predominantly Catholic as a result of their Portuguese colonial history. In 1999 a plebiscite was held in which the population was asked whether they wished to have autonomy within Indonesia or independence. Despite a heavy influx of Indonesians since the Portuguese left, the population of Timor overwhelmingly chose independence, more than three quarters of the population voting for independence. This did not sit well with the Muslims of west Timor, and an insurgency by "militias" tacitly supported by the Indonesia army and police attempted to destabilize East Timor and bring down the attempt to form an independent government.

An international force, lead by the Australians, intervened while the UN slowly and ineptly cobbled together a response, and after a UN force replaced the Australian-led international force, Australian police forces provided the expertise and leadership to investigate and uncover the atrocities committed by the Indonesian "militias." Keep in mind that the population of Indonesia is more than five times that of Australia--and yet Australia stepped up to the plate to defend the newly gained independence of East Timor, to provide humanitarian aid, and to provide police investigatory services.

In 2002, on the Indonesian island of Bali, and in the wake of the September 11th attacks in the United States, a militant Muslim group in Indonesia, Jemaah Islamiyah, was responsible for a suicide bombing which killed more than 200 people, and wounded well over 200 more. Eighty-eight of those killed were Australians. Australia is as intimately familiar with the consequences of international terrorist organizations as anyone can allege the United States to be.

Since the end of the Second World War, Australia has been aware of and deeply involved in the economic growth of Japan and China, and the "little tigers" of eastern Asia. Australia, before any other nation, recognized that for whatever resentments the victors of the Second World War might have against Japan, Japan was the coming economic power of the region, and would have to be engaged effectively. Australia has also shown the same perspicacity and leadership in dealing with the economic growth of China, and of the "little tigers," Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong.

In the first World War, Australia and Canada, although the least populous of Commonwealth nations to provide significant troop levies to the "motherland" suffered the highest rates of casualties in proportion to their respective populations of any nations in the Commonwealth, including England. The English called the Canadians and Australians "the shock troops of Empire," and memorials to Australia and Canada abound in France, and are respectfully maintained to this day.

In the Second World War, Australian troops fought in North Africa and Italy, in addition to their commitments to the Pacific War. Despite having sent off so many troops to Europe and Africa, and despite the criminal incompetence of the English general Percival at Singapore, which doomed thousands of Australian soldiers to the nightmare of Japanese prison camps, Australia provided more troops to MacArthur's Southwest Pacific Theater than any other nation except the United States--they were a major factor in the success of MacArthur's campaigns. Australian troops fought in Korea and in Vietnam.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the South China seas filled up with "boat people" fleeing Indochina, Australia fast tracked the immigration of more than 130,000 refugees, chiefly Vietnamese. Since the late 1980s, the majority of "boat people" who have arrived in Australia have been what the West calls economic refugees, and although there is good reason to criticize various Australian governments for their treatment of these refugees, Australia has been under enormous international pressure to accept more refugees--and, of course, more refugees than other western nations are willing to take in. The Howard government has been justly criticized for its treatment of boat people, of economic refugees, and the criticism has come from Australians as well as the international community. It is, of course, easy to criticize the Australians for this passage of their history when the boat people in question are showing up on their doorstep, and not ours.

Australia has taken part in every significant political and economic development in the modern world. They are as much a part, and a significant part, of the international community as any other nation can claim to be. Australians are as aware and as engaged in their part of the world as any other nation of the region, and it is a region of far greater significance than Americans seem to know.

Personally, i find the best source for news about the Solomon Islands, Papua-New Guinea, Tonga, the Fijis and Indonesia to be ABC's international service. If any nation can be accused of having blind spots, it is more likely to be the United States than Australia.

Oh, the US is chock full of blind spots. No argument there.

I think that pretty much every culture has stuff they know about other cultures and then a whole bunch of other stuff they don't know. Americans are probably a bit sniffier than most about not needing to know other cultures' stuff.

I thought Robert's observation about the charge of racism being bandied about so frequently in America that we're just kind of used to it was interesting. I think one other element of that is that in the course of these conversations, white people telling black people what they should or shouldn't find offensive is its own hot button.

Thank you Sozobe.

That's a very good point. Once when i was in the Army, one of the GIs addressed another one who was Hispanic by descent as "beaner." He just laughed, and said: "Yeah, i love beans . . . what, you don't like beans?" Of course, we all knew that the intent to genuinely insult was absent, but it was kind of like what you are describing. If someone like Brown had been there, he would have attempted to start a fist fight.

I disagree with RG's comment about a blind spot, though. As a turn of phrase in our language, blind spot doesn't mean the failure to see, it means the inability to see. I don't think it would be at all fair to say that the Australians here are unable to see the source of this silly brouhaha. That they view it with contempt is entirely appropriate in my never humble opinion.

White people telling other white people what black people should find offensive is it's own hot button too. No?

And Afro-American black people telling other nationality black-skinned people what they should find offensive is it's own hot button too.

And white people, telling white people, what afro-american black people are telling other black-skinned people should find offensive......geeze, too confusing for me.

How about we all grow some thicker skin (black or white)?

Funny thing about thick skin. I haven't been upset by anything in this thread. Snood was pretty calm. Sozobe as always is clam and classy.

Setanta is the only one spewing vulgarities, unfairly misquoting Snood, making allusions to Nazi's and attacking DrewDad's daughter (not that any of this really bothers me, I am just making a point). It seems like the people with thin skin aren't the people who agree with me.

My main point is that racial sensitivity is a good thing.

These discussions about race and racism are necessary parts of a free society. I don't think anyone denies that there is still racism. And conversely, I don't deny that somethings that are called racism aren't really racism.

I think it is a mistake to shut down Public discussion about these things.

You addressed me specifically. I'll take it that when you said "you," you meant the royal "you" then, if you weren't meaning to address me specifically.


I think you're wrong about this. I'd start by saying that you aren't being asked to conform to anything.


I understand your feelings. I get why you're mad too.

Similarly, I think I've justified my feelings to best of my ability. Like you (and some others) I felt more compelled by many of the comments here more than the ad or its controversy. I'm trying best to temper my posts with a outside perspective on myself and my own limited worldview. I fully understand that coming to understand many elements of this kind of thing means observing and not dictating. Do you understand that this is not unique to us Americans?

It's awfully damn easy these days to assume we're too stupid to know any better.

T
K
O

Yes. I feel that one of the major objections I'm hearing from the Aussies is that by removing the ad, it is in someway forcing Australia to validate a foreign prejudice/stereotype. What I'm hearing, is that by doing this, Australia is being forced to conform to American cultural sensitivities. This is resented. In essence, you feel a change is being asserted on you.

Similarly then, asking Americans to simply not have that sore or negative association would be an assertion of cultural change by the same logic too would it not? Should we resent that assertion to the same degree?


I'll try me best here. I can only speak for myself, and my understanding of the racial world view of the USA is colored by my own racial experience (which is unique) and other factors like geography, which in the USA does effect racial views.

The racial climate in the US is one where we (1) know where we want to be, and (2) struggle with finding where we are actually at. Where we want to be is some sort of collage of post racial ideas. Clean crime free multi-cultural neighborhoods with children playing all to happy to know nothing about the terrible past. We want integration in ways beyond what we have. We feel a certain tension here in the US. It is a tension built on the inequity we observe still. It's not so easy for us to be all post-racial and pretend everything is all square. How could we? It would be ridiculous. I'm quite liberal so this is also a part of my view. Many conservatives don't think racial issues are as valid, while others go as far as to say that they are perpetuated by liberals to co-opt minority sympathy for their political agenda. That says something by itself: Race in the USA is huge on a political level, and what we get at the social and cultural level is something different. Think about it. Could we really be all post racial at a social level knowing the truth about these inequities? It would be rejected by most. Maybe it's worth noting that I think some people try to do exactly that. I think those people are resented in our country and viewed as naive. Race in the USA is a part of us we are very cynical about. We have very few positive places to turn and feel like we are making improvements. Sure, each generation of kids becomes more and more racially integrated socially, but they are raised to learn that "we're the same, but we aren't equal." It's a sort of guilt. We experience shame and so our racial sensitivities are so pronounced, and so taboo. This feeling perhaps most dramatic in those who feel very motivated to make things better. I'm not sure if in Australia, you are familiar with the concept of "white guilt," but it is the idea that some people feel like they are supposed to feel guilty for things they didn't do in the past (that was wordy, sorry). This sometimes breeds animosity and more tension. Try being all post-racial in that climate. Don't get me started on what it means to be politically correct in the USA. That's a song and dance which goes in no one direction alone and implies an even higher order of tension. There is a lot more, and if you like, I can try to continue. It's overwhelming, and honestly, it's a topic too large for one person alone to tackle and try to get it all. Take this away: Our sensitivities do have a profound effect on us for better or for worse.

I don't know what it's like in Australia, but for me to hear Australians telling me as an American that we just need to get over it, makes me feel like you guys might not understand how difficult that would actually be.

T
K
O

Wow. I fucked up the quote boxes on that Eorl. Sorry. Rereading my posts from yesterday, I was a typing and spelling nightmare. Yikes. I should double/triple check my posts after my 12-hour shifts!

T
K
O

That's essentially one of the objections the Ozzians here are making. There is no reason to assume that just because West Indians have dark skins that the fried chicken stereotype applies to them.

I think we've pretty well established that the fried chicken thing is generational, too. See the posts by Green Witch in particular. Roger and I had never heard of it, but we're both around 60 (sorry, Roger, if i got that wrong). I agree completely with the objection that this is not even about African-Americans, but is about West Indians.

Even when they say that my interpretation is what they meant and yours is not? They subconsciously meant what you misinterpreted it as and don't even know it? Sozobe has flat out told you that she just meant that the ad wouldn't be a problem if it were "purely" confined to Australia but you still want to read that as being US-centric and thinking that it represents a projection of US stereotypes elsewhere? Well that's your prerogative but it might be part of the communication problem you have alluded to. If you insist on reading meanings between the lines that your interlocutors say isn't there then you've taken it upon yourself to argue both sides on your own.



Well this is an odd disconnect, I've never seen such wide disagreement line up so perfectly along national/cultural lines on able2know. I understand your point (yet again, this notion that we can't understand it when we don't agree is annoying), but it's predicated on misinterpreting what people say and a stubborn refusal to take their posts in the meaning they explain that they intended.

What it is that Americans are supposed to "get" is precisely that they can't get it and can't because of their American blind spot. Bless our little hearts for trying (insert more American stereotypes here) but the whole point you want them to get seems to be their inability to do so. Case in point, see margo popping in occasionally to patronizingly tell you not to bother even trying to get it though our thick heads.

You are definitely right to pick up on irony, because this has the feeling of you trying to force Americans to wear your stereotypes about their cultural orientation regardless of whether it fits. You've decided that Americans have a blind spot (based on your clear misinterpretation of what they mean) and won't abide any failure to recognize it.

Thing is, I don't think any Americans here disagree with that. Disagreement starts where we think pulling the ad anyway (regardless of intent) is no big deal and they do.

That just cracks me up. I see one, exactly one Ozzian objecting to that, and that's Eorl. The Wabbit has all but shouted that she doesn't give a **** about the ad being pulled. I've not seen other Ozzians objecting to it, just describing it as silly. Suit yourself, though--you think your way, and i'll think mine.

Yeah, I should be more clear. Not just the pulling of the ad specifically but all the conditions surrounding it.

But Eorl isn't the only one, several others have expressed that the removal of the ad constitutes undue cultural influence on Australia.

I'd have to go back through the thread to check that out, and that i'm definitely not going to do. I got the impression, though, that they understood the ad being pulled, and that their objection was to the silliness of the entire affair, and the projection of clueless American attitudes.

On the one hand, i object to that because people who flock to youtube for their daily dose of entertainment or of outrage can't necessarily be taken as exemplary of all Americans. On the other hand, i do recognize that most Americans don't know squat about Australians, and really ought not to judge. In the final analysis, i'd just say that i suspect most Americans don't judge, and that most Americans have never heard of this entire dust up.

The problem is that it had to be pulled.

There was nothing wrong with the ad.

There were no afro americans in the advertisment.

At least two Americans wrongly placed their own cultural values on their own misinterpretation of an advertisment thus creating a controvesy that was needless.

What i think us Australians here want is to have it acknowledged that there would have been no need for the controvesy in the first place if these two Americans had not placed their own cultural values on an advertisment not meant for their market.

The other thing that has been going on here is the "yes but..." or "i agree but...."
To us there isnt any "but" about it. The Young Turks got wrong, full stop end of story.

I'm not going to look up what I really said, but maybe I should clarify. I was aware of the stereotypes involving fried chicken, but that awareness is fairly recent, say the past 5 or 10 years. It wasn't something I grew up knowing, in other words.

To doubly condemn my self, I didn't really understand the racial implications of the confederate battle flag before following a few kind of nasty discussions on a2k.

No it is not. We are not asking you to not have the negetive association. just dont apply it to us.

Well, that's clear enough, and I'm not going to do it anymore.