Aishwariya Rai in Racist Ad - Page 8

The celebrity is the face of any ad or film. This is why he or she is at the receiving end of bouquets and brickbats.

Nothing wrong in addressing an open letter to her.

She is not just any other model. She's powerful enough to examine how her images are being used.

Ash should have taken a stand.

But I guess she won't. Celebs rarely do.

Originally posted by: AkaiShuichiGirl

you are a complete idiot. It is because blacks were always looked down upon and treated as 3rd class human beings, it's because they were treated, sold, and owned. It is because of slavery and the impacts it had on the americas and africa. WHITE people were NEVER made out to be INFERIOR to any other other race but SUPERIOR. Your three posts of white people holding umbrellas mean SHIT. Those pictures dont convey the slave/inferiority mentality because white people were never perceived too be weaker or inferior to any other race. smdh @ the f**kery you are spewing.

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.

I disagree.

This is a Madhubani painting - http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/madhubani-painting-8294267.jpg

This is colonial art depicting slaves waiting on white noblewomen - https://s3-ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/scrollstorage/1429681281-1387_farah1.jpg

I don't see any artistic or aesthetic similarities between Madhubani and Ash's advert. Madhubani art also shows queens being waited on by handmaidens. The imagery showed distinctly Indian women of various skin tones.

The advert has a lot more in common with colonial images of slavery. The artistic style and aesthetics is more in common with those. It appears to be a slave rather than handmaiden. The boy has ambiguous features that could be Afro.

Originally posted by: charminggenie

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.

India is not an isolated country. Nor is it an ignorant country. Such imagery is reflective of colonial slavery which was rooted in racism. As part of a world where so many people have suffered, including many Indians too, it is highly inappropriate to use such imagery to sell something.

If the intention was different then everyone involved needs to step forward, acknowledge that they missed the implications and apologize for it. Passing the buck or shrugging shoulders isn't the right way to deal with it.

I disagree that fairness preference in India is purely a class divide or economic divide. It is an insidious remnant of racism that hides itself as an innocuous social preference.

Originally posted by: Antlers

I was hoping the OP was going to shed a light on this. The comparison is so absurd.

I can only hope that those claiming that this ad isn't racist are unaware of the impact of slavery on African lives and why the race issue is still alive and relevant even today.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

I disagree.

This is a Madhubani painting - http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/madhubani-painting-8294267.jpg

This is colonial art depicting slaves waiting on white noblewomen - https://s3-ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/scrollstorage/1429681281-1387_farah1.jpg

Hadey I said they tried , not that they created a Madhubani painting. I am sure we both can come up with different images but that is not the point here.

I don't see the garb as "white noblewomen" because history has had both Mughal and Persian Princesses dressed up similarly. i am sure a google search be enough.

I don't see any artistic or aesthetic similarities between Madhubani and Ash's advert. Madhubani art also shows queens being waited on by handmaidens. The imagery showed distinctly Indian women of various skin tones.

Queens waited by handmaidens .Ash is an Indian woman , so how does she appear to be a European noblewomen os beyond my comprehension or are we to assume her "colour" is not Indian enough . or there has not been Indian Queen's with her skin tone.

THere is just one "Queen" played by an Indian woman who is fair like many normal Indian people. The clothing could very well be Persian/Mughal anything .

The advert has a lot more in common with colonial images of slavery. The artistic style and aesthetics is more in common with those. It appears to be a slave rather than handmaiden. The boy has ambiguous features that could be Afro.

I see it as child labour instead and that boy doesn't look afro to me at all. Queens had servants to carry their hand-carriages all the time in India or even to serve them- a look at desi "historical" shows will indicate that . No handmaiden ever carried the "palki" for a Queen- physically not possible.


India is not an isolated country. Nor is it an ignorant country. Such imagery is reflective of colonial slavery which was rooted in racism. As part of a world where so many people have suffered, including many Indians too, it is highly inappropriate to use such imagery to sell something.

If the intention was different then everyone involved needs to step forward, acknowledge that they missed the implications and apologize for it. Passing the buck or shrugging shoulders isn't the right way to deal with it.

I disagree that fairness preference in India is purely a class divide or economic divide. It is an insidious remnant of racism that hides itself as an innocuous social preference.

I didn't even say it's economical or class divide. I mentioned how Pre-colonial days ,before Biritish invasion we didn't have class division based on colour. Which is how I see the painting as . I see it Pre-colonial while your perception and take is post colonial simple.

Neither the painting gives a time-frame , nor does it star a "foreign" face to sell white race supremacy . They have used an Indian woman to show an Indian Queen with the palki which was driven by servants then . Simple.

It is a bad attempt because of the child labour angle.

Say next time we have Ash stepping out of a car for an advert and a person who has a different skin tone to hers open the door- would that also be called as racism .

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

I can only hope that those claiming that this ad isn't racist are unaware of the impact of slavery on African lives and why the race issue is still alive and relevant even today.

Originally posted by: charminggenie

Hadey - Are you going to compere the pre-colonial class divide of India as slavery based on colour and then compere it to slavery and it's impact on African lives? How do you even support that argument.

I'm comparing the advert to colonial slavery imagery. Intended or unintended, it has disturbing similarities. In a global world, one needs to be more aware of what imagery portrays.

Also in pre-colonial India dark skin didn't have a negative implications. Draupadi and Krishna were both extremely dusky. In post-colonial India dark skin has become undesirable. One cannot ignore the undertones influenced by racism.

Prior to British, even the Muslim invaders were fair skinned and considered themselves superior to darker Indians. That is why Rega Jha's tweet received such backlash. She was playing into the sentiments that the Afghani races were more attractive than Indian. While I found it humorous and disagreed with the backlash, I know why many Indians were hurt and upset.

Am sure Aishwarya knew before n her excuse is so poor n lame

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

I'm comparing the advert to colonial slavery imagery. Intended or unintended, it has disturbing similarities. In a global world, one needs to be more aware of what imagery portrays.

Also in pre-colonial India dark skin didn't have a negative implications. Draupadi and Krishna were both extremely dusky. In post-colonial India dark skin has become undesirable. One cannot ignore the undertones influenced by racism.

Prior to British, even the Muslim invaders were fair skinned and considered themselves superior to darker Indians. That is why Rega Jha's tweet received such backlash. She was playing into the sentiments that the Afghani races were more attractive than Indian. While I found it humorous and disagreed with the backlash, I know why many Indians were hurt and upset.

Slavery was introduced to white-man by Muslim traders (Fulanis, I think). Before selling them to Whites, they use to brand them like cows and shackle them. Also, the Africans slaves suffered for thousand of yrs under the slave traders.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

I'm comparing the advert to colonial slavery imagery. Intended or unintended, it has disturbing similarities. In a global world, one needs to be more aware of what imagery portrays.

Also in pre-colonial India dark skin didn't have a negative implications. Draupadi and Krishna were both extremely dusky. In post-colonial India dark skin has become undesirable. One cannot ignore the undertones influenced by racism.

Prior to British, even the Muslim invaders were fair skinned and considered themselves superior to darker Indians. That is why Rega Jha's tweet received such backlash. She was playing into the sentiments that the Afghani races were more attractive than Indian. While I found it humorous and disagreed with the backlash, I know why many Indians were hurt and upset.