This is what I hate about advertising. I know that the first picture isn't exactly on the level, PC-wise, but the idea behind it strikes me as really cool and intriguing - which only serves to make me disappointing in myself for being drawn in by it.

I'm not really sure how the first image is particularly racist.

It doesn't seem to be implying any savagery on the part of the forest-dwellers. Nothing would be changed, really, if they were white, except that the image might make a little bit less sense, since the people who would live in an amazon forest like that would have darker skin.

As to the second image, I find it creepy, but the problem isn't the girls at all. The problem is the lurking men that the camera is highlighting.

I think the racism in the 1st is subtle and two-fold. Firstly, it says that native people are dark like shadows and thus can sneak around and be spooky all the time. I think it also implies that they are going to attack that Dr. Livingston-type guy (and like a million stereotypes, maybe boil him in a big cauldron over and open fire or some such thing? It's that how it always was with Bugs Bunny?)

I think the disturbing quality of the 2nd one is a little more obvious. I think it is trying more to be funny than to be sexist, and I can see the humor. But I don't appreciate how this fits in with the already ubiquitous imagery of the same type. I think it simultaneous shames the peepers, and yet says its ok by having this ad in general. I mean, aren't we all made to be voyeurs by this ad? The inherent hypocrisy therein is what upsets me.

This is just creepy. The racist element is subtle, to me (though it sounds like Nikon may have been pro-Vietnam war), but the sexist element is not.

I agree with Rick, though, the worst element is the lurker in the background. Though maybe they're trying to encourage a stalking deterent!

The stupidity of the corporate world never ceases to befuddle me.

Absolutely agree with your take on the 2nd image, not so much on the 1st image.

Jungle people behaving like people who live in the jungle? Not so very racist. If it was POC living in a modern urban environment with spears and loincloths then I'd agree, but I can link to a bunch of images of forest dwelling people who still use spears/blowguns, etc and wear paint on their faces/bodies and wear little to no "clothing".

Ugh. If I were watching this commercial on TV with my peers, they would say "sex sells!" That's a poor excuse for sexism in this ad. I found the whole "faux hot lesbian" scene for the male gaze disgusting, especially since they look so young. Gross.

I can just hear that ad planning meeting now.

Asshole creative type #1: "You know what's fun?"

Idiot Nikon representative: "What?"

Asshole creative type #1: "Lesbian child pornography, jungle bunnies, and ghosts. Now that's fun!"

Idiot Nikon representative: "Brilliant! Run with it."

This is the trifecta of offensive advertising. To think, I was actually saving up money to buy one of Nikon's higher end cameras. Looks like Canon will be getting my money now.

Do we have any kind of confirmation that this is an actual Nikon ad? We get an awful lot of print ads on Feministing that turn out to be something that some idiot ad guy posed to the company only to have it rejected.

This seems like an idea that would be better as a video advert. Like, have a bunch of kids playing hide and seek, and then have one pull out a camera and see their faces....

The theory behind these adverts is solid, hidden pictures are fun.

The execution was pathetic, and rather embarrassing.

The more I look at these ads, the creepier they are. Which I guess is kind of the point, but I agree with Danyell--there are so many better ways the same idea could have been conveyed. My first thought is that the first one would be so much cooler if it were elves or faeries hiding in the forest. Not very mainstream, true, but a lot of fantasy fans would be excited about it.

Also, in the second one, the camera is picking up a face in the room--hidden behind the curtain. That's just insane. The ones in the other building, I can accept the person with the camera not seeing at first, but the one in the room? No way!

Sorry, but those ads are brilliant and funny. I love em. They have generated a buzz for sure, which is great for Nikon. Guess I'm just not as sensitive as the rest.

To everybody saying these are actually clever, since this hasn't been pointed out yet- it's pretty much just ripping off the "when you see it" internet meme.

I guess being the first company to make money from it can be considered clever, but this isn't some fresh idea they came up with out of nowhere.

These are also more potentially offensive than many of the internet meme varieties, which is interesting.

You could choose to be offended by this advertising, or you could choose not to be. The mistake a lot of you are making in this thread is believing that you can call these images "objectively" racist or sexist.

What makes the people who laugh at this ad and go back to their everyday non-racist lives wrong, and you guys right?

Feministing is great, and it brings up a lot of important things, but it's posts like this one, where you get bogged down in your own self-righteousness that turn me off. You're clouding the real issues by nitpicking.

Smoke a joint and laugh about it!

You have got to be fucking kidding me.

Someone at Nikon thought this was a good idea?

Consider them contacted.

Time to quote the great Melissa McEwan

Feminism 101: Sexism is not a matter of opinion

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/04/feminism-101-sexism-is-matter-of.html

Just because some white guys would have a hard time recognizing sexism and racism if they stomped over them in nailed boots, or were paid-for Nikon ads, doesn't mean racism and sexism don't exist in those ads, and that they're not stomping over the rest of us in real life. But you know, when you're the norm, it's so easy to dismiss everyone else's view, isn't it? It's so easy to call the little women and dark-skinned people humorless and thin-skinned (ha!), and just tell them to "lighten up" (double ha!).

If you're not offended, there is something wrong with you. Now get off your lazy asses and think about it.

It seems to me that there is something being referenced by the first ad that many of the posters here are not familiar with. There are many old movies, dime novels, comic books, and TV programs that featured storylines with white explorers venturing into the "savage jungle". A common "gag" was to have the explorer in focus, apparently confident and untroubled, and then have the camera shot shift to nearly-hidden, dark faces spying on the explorer from the surrounding flora. The implication was that the natives were planning to capture the oblivious explorer (of course to do terrible things to him, like maybe cook him on a spit). These old bits of entertainment relied on their offensive stereotypes for their humor. Sometimes they would even include scenes of the natives conversing in a made-up "ooga-booga" language. Yuck. That's the allusion in the first ad that many of you may be too young to remember. So, it does invoke a history of racist entertainment.

I disagree with part of this post- I believe that the second image is sexist, but I don't see the first image as racist at all. Here's why:

The second image is particularly disturbing. I feel that this image, like much of the advertising in our time, seeks to sell a product through selling the idea of women's exposed bodies, given to whomever wants them! What do all of our almost-nude models tell society? "You see my body? Its yours! You can have it! Take what you want from me, I am here to satisfy your sexuality." I believe that these sexually revealing ads of women are not liberating at all- all they do is take away women's privacy! If we are used to seeing basically-naked women on all of our billboards and on most every TV show, who is going to value a woman's body as something beautiful, extraordinary, powerful, and under the exclusive ownership of the woman? Ads like this strip away the woman's private ownership of her own body. According to our society, a woman's body is useful in selling consumer goods. Our society sees a woman's body as a commodity, something to help sell cameras, something you can buy in a magazine or DVD. This is not art, this is not an instance of female nudity which seeks to reveal a deep, beautiful truth about our world. This is simply exploiting women's bodies. And who takes place in this? The companies that post these pictures and the women who pose for them. Oh yes, women too should be held accountable for their actions. Just because a woman may want to pose nude for these ads does not make it right. Women, if you don't value your own privacy, at least value the privacy of other women and do not pose for ads which demean a woman's worth.

Beyond that, the second image is disgusting because it is incredibly creepy, showing a whole host of people peeping in on these women, again stealing their privacy, taking those women's bodies for their own. Stalking is not funny, Nikon. Non-consensual voyeurism is not funny, Nikon. These things are degrading. Feminists are calling on men to respect women- well how about we start calling on women to respect themselves as well. We are not accountable for someone else's actions, but we are for our own. Feministing, I have seen you guys post multiple times about the sexist ads that PETA runs, the ads which present naked women as a way of making vegetarianism seem more appealing to our sociery (not that vegetarianism is bad at all). I think we need to hound the companies who are posting these ads, but also, we need to tell women that they are worth more than this. I don't care if you think freedom for women means that women can pose nude- that is not at all what freedom for women means to me. Freedom for women should mean a world where women's bodies aren't bought & sold as commodities, whether literally or through advertising. Although it is never a woman's faulty when she is physically/sexually/emotionally/verbally abused, women can step up and stop degrading themselves when it comes to advertising and modeling. Its a change that WE can make for our own betterment.

As for the first picture of the jungle explorer- how is this racist? Did you just look at this picture and try to pull whatever racism out of it that you can? It shows a dumb guy who is white and some natives who are hiding in the bushes, curious about his arrival. About the natives having a spear- if they live in the woods without technology, what other type of weapon would they use? I would think most any community would bring a weapon just in case when it is checking out an intruder who may possibly be threatening. Is EVERY ad that features white people and some other race of people automatically racist? Seriously, Feministing, there is such fucked up stuff going on in our world right now, and THIS is what you post on?????? This is supposed to be one of the most outrageous articles of the day? Honestly...

meanwhile, the t-shirt ad immediately below this post has a skinny, young-looking girl pointing at her breasts. it's advertising, it's based on cheap tactics like this. it is good to recognize it, but i'd be more happier if it led to some people examining their own racism and sexism than i would if the ad was pulled because of a reactionary outrage.

I'm not sure if this has been pointed out yet, but Nikon is a Japanese brand, and while Japan is a wonderful place in many ways (I've lived there for almost a decade) both racism and sexism are serious problems there.

Due, in part, to the homogenous society, any foreigner or 'gaijin' ('outside person') stands out a heck of a lot and is noticed by everyone. Luckily this isn't much of a problem once you get to know Japanese people one on one (or if they live in a more multi-cultural city, or if they've lived overseas), they see you less and less as a gaijin and more and more as just a normal person. But it's still a pretty big probblem. And yes, you guessed it, people with darker skin are especially subject to this kind of prejudice.

So for those of you arguing that there is nothing behind the first picture, I can tell you that the overall cultural context and the message it's sending are not positive or harmless.

PS There is nothing wrong with tearing ads apart! The whole idea of feminism is to stay one step ahead of teh game [of the patriarchy] and when you see it, name it. That is, in part, how you do examine your own feelings of racism and sexism, and how you stop ads like these effecting your thinking (because as all us good little psychology students know, ads have a very powerful and often subconscious effect on our minds!).

you know, i've kept my mouth shut for awhile now... but i do have to say something about discussion vs. harassment.

the majority of people who try to bring up an alternative viewpoint in a non-judgmental manner for the purposes of discussion are ultimately shot down and excluded from the conversation. its happened to me more than once on this site, and its frustrating to see it perpetuated to other people as well.

what does one have to do to "prove" their feminist values to the feministing community? i'm not trying to be harassing - i'm being serious. is there somewhere to post my resume of relevant coursework, publications, PR, event organizing, and activist experience?

feminism is like any other view of looking at the world - there are gradients. it would be nice to see more of them embraced on this site.

If the first picture is racist towards the black people in the background, is it also racist towards the white explorer?
I think it may be. Here's why:
I didn't view the picture as racist at first (since although it's a cliche to view natives of a jungle in that manner, it's not necessarily untruthful or exaggerating--which would be my criteria in this example for a racist depiction.) However, when I try to consider how it could be racist, I am also left with the impression that the biggest stereotype is the white tourist. The guy looks goofy and doesn't understand what's going on. So if anything, I think the picture could be enforcing the stereotype that white travelers don't understand what they're doing when they go to exotic locals. I think that's more of a stereotype (and thus also racist) because I think the depiction of the natives is less of an exaggeration than that of the explorer. While a lot of white travelers don't understand the areas they travel too, the goofy expression, clothing, and complete obliviousness on this explorer are definite exaggerations.
(Also, as a side note, it's really hard to critically think about some of these posts when people argue 'this is racist' or 'no it's not' without explaining what they mean by racist, and how this counts as an example of it. It's really frustrating to read something like 'if you don't see the racism you're white privilege is getting in the way.' I think it would be more helpful to explain what one means by privilege, and how someone would go about seeing through it--because honestly, spotting one's own prejudices is not easy. Prejudices are assumptions, which we make about everything in life [for example, I assume the sun will rise tomorrow.] The hard part is discerning which assumptions are warranted, and which ones aren't--which isn't as clear-cut a task as I wish it were.)

I Would Totally Wreck Those Two Chicks ;-)

and you don't sound like a butch bitch

Hmm, I can't quite figure out why more people aren't posting on the second picture. The first one is important to talk about also, but not too many posts on the bottom picture for whatever reason. I'm wondering if some don't find the bottom pic. offensive because they like that they are including (possibly) lesbians? I honestly don't think the second picture is doing that though. It's made to be offensive. I think the litmus test is-- "Could we see the advertisement just as easily with two young males?" and "Can we see the ad with two older women together?" I think the answer to both questions is NO. They also look too young. I can't tell bc the picture is small, but does one of the girls have braces? I'm definitely writing to Nikon.

I am a Black man and I am not offended by the jungle ad. What better way to demonstrate how well a camera handles contrast. Perhaps one could have used an animal known for its camouflage. The Gabon Viper comes to mind. But this is OK too. I am what was called in my youth a "race man" (a Black man extremely proud of his heritage and culture) and this does not upset me.

I do however see the problem with the two women on the bed. It is juvenile and sexist. You'd think it was an AXE Body Spray ad, not an ad for the most respected camera company in the world. Shame!

Forgive me for resurrecting an old thread (by the standards of Feministing that is!), but I must confess to being nothing more than mildly amused by this series of advertisements when I first saw them on another site, and was a bit taken aback to find such scathing critiques of them here. While reading this thread has certainly been thought-provoking and has made me look at them in a new light, and I would echo other posters’ points that “racism” and “sexism” are hardly uncontested terms and that Nikon could certainly have chosen other subjects (and did – see its one with ghosts), I find the notion that the second advertisement with lesbians is sexist, well…patronizing, first as a man and then as a consumer. Dealing with each in turn:

While some may see this as reading too much into what other posters have written, I think the argument that the advertisement is sexist relies heavily on the notion that the lesbians are unwitting, innocent subjects violated by a voyeuristic male gaze. Against that, firstly is the fact that they are knowingly being photographed by a third party; sure, that doesn’t give anyone else the right to invade the privacy of the trio, but then they left the curtains open, and so such attention is to be expected. Consider the natural reactions of people that could see them if this happened in real life then: as my sister can confirm, who has worked in offices downtown for much of her working life and has thus had the (mis)fortune of sometimes seeing people unwittingly or wittingly publicly having sex in neighboring hotel rooms and apartments, men and women can and do choose to be disgusted, offended, bored, alarmed or aroused and intrigued by seeing the act, and while undoubtedly more men than women feel the latter, and are more likely to openly leer too, as per cultural expectations many women initially express disgust and disinterest...but then end up staring just as much as the men.

Pray, what makes this natural behavior by both sexes sexist?

Which brings me to my second point: if the advertisement was realistic, then of course the boy(?) behind the curtains would be absent, and there would be many female faces amongst those watching the women in the background as I explained…but then it’s supposed to be a joke, not provide an accurate (and usually rather more mundane) portrayal of events. People can tell the difference, and while the advertisement in itself may make some men more likely to leer at women, and think women automatically enjoy this form of attention, such men are hardly likely to need much persuasion in the first place. While I’m usually hesitant to give much credence to a (by definition) inferior “other” class of people that I naturally don’t belong to, it’s patently true in this case: I’m not stupid, I’m not sexist, and I don’t leer at women or think that seeing them in an advertisement (or pornography for that matter) enjoying that form of attention means that they do in real life. Nor, do I think, do most men and women, and so we can see it for what it is: a joke, which the boy and exclusively male observers in it make both less realistic and more humorous.

Forgive me for resurrecting an old thread (by the standards of Feministing that is!), but I must confess to being nothing more than mildly amused by this series of advertisements when I first saw them on another site, and was a bit taken aback to find such scathing critiques of them here. While reading this thread has certainly been thought-provoking and has made me look at them in a new light, and I would echo other posters’ points that “racism” and “sexism” are hardly uncontested terms and that Nikon could certainly have chosen other subjects (and did – see its one with ghosts), I find the notion that the second advertisement with lesbians is sexist, well…patronizing, first as a man and then as a consumer. Dealing with each in turn:

While some may see this as reading too much into what other posters have written, I think the argument that the advertisement is sexist relies heavily on the notion that the lesbians are unwitting, innocent subjects violated by a voyeuristic male gaze. Against that, firstly is the fact that they are knowingly being photographed by a third party; sure, that doesn’t give anyone else the right to invade the privacy of the trio, but then they left the curtains open, and so such attention is to be expected. Consider the natural reactions of people that could see them if this happened in real life then: as my sister can confirm, who has worked in offices downtown for much of her working life and has thus had the (mis)fortune of sometimes seeing people unwittingly or wittingly publicly having sex in neighboring hotel rooms and apartments, men and women can and do choose to be disgusted, offended, bored, alarmed or aroused and intrigued by seeing the act, and while undoubtedly more men than women feel the latter, and are more likely to openly leer too, as per cultural expectations many women initially express disgust and disinterest...but then end up staring just as much as the men.

Pray, what makes this natural behavior by both sexes sexist?

Which brings me to my second point: if the advertisement was realistic, then of course the boy(?) behind the curtains would be absent, and there would be many female faces amongst those watching the women in the background as I explained…but then it’s supposed to be a joke, not provide an accurate (and usually rather more mundane) portrayal of events. People can tell the difference, and while the advertisement in itself may make some men more likely to leer at women, and think women automatically enjoy this form of attention, such men are hardly likely to need much persuasion in the first place. While I’m usually hesitant to give much credence to a (by definition) inferior “other” class of people that I naturally don’t belong to, it’s patently true in this case: I’m not stupid, I’m not sexist, and I don’t leer at women or think that seeing them in an advertisement (or pornography for that matter) enjoying that form of attention means that they do in real life. Nor, do I think, do most men and women, and so we can see it for what it is: a joke, which the boy and exclusively male observers in it make both less realistic and more humorous.

But we're not just saying the problem is only with the voyeurism. It's still sexist for the fact that the two probably underage girls are there in underwear on top of each other and we can't imagine another gender in their places and we can't imagine older people in their places and we can't imagine two black girls or black boys, etc. etc. They're exploiting women here.

Too much thinking. Someone get in the kitchen and make me some biscuits!

Too much thinking. Someone get in the kitchen and make me some biscuits!

this last comment is making me laugh so much. this is definitely sexes. I am not sure what to think about these photos.

digital camera reviews