Aishwariya Rai in Racist Ad - Page 6

Created

Last reply

Replies

103

Views

16.3k

Users

49

Likes

368

Frequent Posters

CineFanLuver thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 10 years ago
#51

Leaving this PV article here. It pretty much sums it all up.

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan's ad caught in a racism row!


Aishwarya Rai Bachchan looks gorgeous in this print Ad of a jewellery brand that she endorses. However, it is not as great as it looks, apparently. This was pointed out to Aishwarya in an open letter, which explains how and why this Ad is so very wrong.

Excerpts from the open letter:

Dear Mrs Aishwarya Rai Bachchan,

We write to draw your attention to a full-page advertisement for Kalyan Jewellers in which you feature that appeared in The Hindu (Delhi edition) on April 17, 2015. In the advertisement you appear to be representing aristocracy from a bygone era - bejewelled, poised and relaxing while an obviously underage slave-child, very dark and emaciated, struggles to hold an oversize umbrella over your head.

We wish to convey our dismay at the concept of this advertisement, and that you have, perhaps unthinkingly, associated with such a regressive portrayal of a child to sell a product. While advertisers routinely use fantasy images to sell products, they must surely desist from using images that condone, legitimise, normalise, or build desirable fantasy around slavery or servitude of any kind, including child slavery or child servitude.Further, the extremely fair colour of your skin (as projected in the advertisement) contrasted with the black skin of the slave-boy is obviously a deliberate "creative" juxtaposition by the advertising agency, and insidiously racist. The genealogy of this image can be traced back to 17th and 18th century colonial European portraits of white aristocracy, depicting women being waited upon by their black "servants".

Today, many national and international movements are struggling to change at least the public culture that normalises child labour, a struggle that the Nobel committee has also recognised. We, therefore, hope you agree that this sort of advertisement - a romaticisation of child servitude to feed into elite fantasies - is extremely objectionable and avoidable.👏

The letter also goes on to say that they have sent a similar correspondence to the jewellery brand as well.

Aishwarya's spokesperson was quick to respond to this mail. The official statement from Mrs Bachchan's team is as follows"

Dear Farah Naqvi, Nisha Agrawal, Enakshi Ganguly , Bharti Ali, Madhu Mehra, Shantha Sinha, Harsh Mander and Mridula Bajaj, On the onset we would like to thank you on drawing our attention to the observation of the perception of the advertisement. Here is an attachment of the shot taken by somebody during the shoot. The final layout of the ad is entirely the prerogative of the creative team for a brand. However shall forward your article as a viewpoint that can be taken into consideration by the creative team of professional working on the brand visual communication. Thank you once again....


Letters are not enough, obviously.
Edited by BollyFanLuver - 10 years ago
misshypocrite thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Navigator Thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago
#52
those pics of the President and some celebs... 😆 Please educate yourself.

Slavery is a legal or economic system under which people are treated as property. While laws and systems vary, as property, slaves may be bought and sold.

Umbrella Holders are not any property. They are not owned by the celebrities. They are PAID. They are not treated as complete s**t.

This image here shows a CHILD, who is obviously living below the poverty level, holding an umbrella for a rich woman. THAT IS WRONG. You cannot compare slavery to umbrella holders. Yes, blacks have been treated terribly, which is why this would create an outrage. Kalyan is irresponsible.
Edited by LakshmiMata - 10 years ago
448368 thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago
#53

Originally posted by: NailClipper

She isn't playing a Brit or an American here. How is this racism then?


I think she is portrayed as a aristocrat or an Indian princess of bygone era and the little boy is the servant/domestic help. I agree with OC the ad should be blasted for child labour/servitude then racism.
998331 thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago
#54

Originally posted by: BollyFanLuver

Because it is representing a foregone era where aristocrats like the one she is playing owned slaves like that boy.

There are many europeans old pics that depict the exact same scene like this ad, pics from slavery times.

The open letter was spot on.


How are we so sure that boy was a slave, not just a servant?

Promoting child labor can be the issue here, but having servant is not.

Hai.. no one of this forum loves Downton Abbey, kya?

charminggenie thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Stunner Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 10 years ago
#55
Ah!The campaign tried to create a "madhubani" painting of sorts. They do play around with colour in those paintings. Fair queens in those paintings are usually depicted like this and separate colour for other servants and sometimes even for the King.
But clearly this failed because the idea of using Ash as the Queen carried by a slave would always bring the racism argument. What makes it worse is that the "slave" figure seems like a kid which brings in the child labour argument.

But if say a fair queen was carried by dusky servants which isn't that unthinkable considering the history of India would it really be a colour issue or a class divide based on economics. Because the differentiation happened for economical reasons,power not coz of colour. India has always been a multi-coloured country.
Edited by charminggenie - 10 years ago
touch_of_pink thumbnail
Visit Streak 500 Thumbnail Visit Streak 365 Thumbnail + 8
Posted: 10 years ago
#56

Originally posted by: NailClipper


If I'm not wrong those aren't Sanjay Gupta's tweets, those are Aish's publicist Archana Sadanand's tweets RTed by Sanjay Gupta.


It's Sanjay Gupta's. He added his own comments.

448368 thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago
#57

Originally posted by: charminggenie

Ah!The campaign tried to create a "madhubani" painting of sorts. They do play around with colour in those paintings. Fair queens in those paintings are usually depicted like this and separate colour for other servants and sometimes even for the King.

But clearly this failed because the idea of using Ash as the Queen carried by a slave would always bring the racism argument. What makes it worse is that the "slave" figure seems like a kid which brings in the child labour argument.

But if say a fair queen was carried by dusky servants which isn't that unthinkable considering the history of India would it really be a colour issue or a class divide based on economics. Because the differentiation happened for economical reasons.power not on colour. India has always been a multi-coloured country.


@ bold: exactly.
charminggenie thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Stunner Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 10 years ago
#58
It's like saying Noor Jahaan was racist because she was "fair" and her servants dusky, even though so many of Jahangir's queens were dusky too .
Indian History is different from European, American one. Lets keep that in our head before we argue about racism here.
fivestars thumbnail
13th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail Engager Level 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago
#59
it doesn't look like a racist ad but promoting a child labor is what makes the ad so awful...imo
CineFanLuver thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 10 years ago
#60
If the ad was to present Aish as a known historical princess in a movie role, it would be different. It isnt.
Beside, the history of slavery & racism of the west make such depictions highly problematic, unless they are relevant to history. & not everyone of the servant cast in India is/was dusky or black.
This part of the letter bears repeting:

"We wish to convey our dismay at the concept of this advertisement, and that you have, perhaps unthinkingly, associated with such a regressive portrayal of a child to sell a product. While advertisers routinely use fantasy images to sell products, they must surely desist from using images that condone, legitimise, normalise, or build desirable fantasy around slavery or servitude of any kind, including child slavery or child servitude.Further, the extremely fair colour of your skin (as projected in the advertisement) contrasted with the black skin of the slave-boy is obviously a deliberate "creative" juxtaposition by the advertising agency, and insidiously racist.The genealogy of this image can be traced back to 17th and 18th century colonial European portraits of white aristocracy, depicting women being waited upon by their black "servants".
Today, many national and international movements are struggling to change at least the public culture that normalises child labour, a struggle that the Nobel committee has also recognised. We, therefore, hope you agree that this sort of advertisement - a romaticisation of child servitude to feed into elite fantasies - is extremely objectionable and avoidable."

Related Topics

Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".