Procter & Gamble's Racist Anti-Cop Commercial Sparks Outrage
In their latest efforts to pander to leftists who believe that modern-day America is a deeply racist country with deeply racist cops around every corner, Procter & Gamble released a new commercial:
The spot, which has gathered over 1.2 million views on YouTube, attempts to convince viewers that Jim Crow is alive and well. It plays out like a historical timeline, with black parents giving "The Talk" to their children, from the 1950's well into present day.
In this instance, the message of "The Talk" is one of self-defeatism, essentially: "You will always be a victim because you are black and everyone wants to hurt and stop you from succeeding, especially the police, who also want to kill you for no reason."
While racism was certainly an issue in the Jim Crow era of the 1960's, this commercial takes it to ridiculous lengths with its rhetoric. Here's and analysis of everything that was said in the ad, organized by era:
1950's: "Who said that? That is not a compliment. You're not 'pretty for a black girl.' You're beautiful, period."
This is perhaps the only reasonable statement in the whole ad, as racially charged backhanded compliments are not okay even by today's standards (and anyone that says things like these should be cast out by society). The rest of the commercial quickly goes downhill.
1960's: "That's an ugly, nasty word. And you're gonna hear it; nothing I can do about that. But you are not going to let that word hurt you."
That's what a black mother tells her young son as he sits on a porch swing listening intently. She's probably talking about the n-word. While not an unreasonable lesson to teach her son, it's ironic given a modern context.
To be fair, the 1960's black parent probably doesn't know that in the future, some of the highest paid black entertainers would make millions from works prominently featuring the slur. Apparently it won't hurt so long as young boys don't hear it from non-blacks.
1970's: "There's some people who think you don't deserve the same privileges just because of what you look like. That's not fair. It's not."
Going by the hairstyles, these parents are well in the 70's era, well after integration took place and the Jim Crow era ended. On top of that, equal opportunity laws (as well as Affirmative Action) had been in place for at least 20 years.
There will always be people that think other people don't deserve privileges due to their appearance. While they should be cast out of society, it's ridiculous to imply this is solely a blacks-only issue.
1980's: "Remember, you can do anything they can. The difference is you gotta work twice as hard and be twice as smart."
Who exactly is "they"? White people? All non-blacks?
Looking at educational data from the 1980's, blacks were more likely to drop out of high school, had lower graduation rates and generally performed worse academically than whites. Looking at the numbers, it would seem that blacks don't need to work harder or be smarter than the status quo so much as the efforts historically expended are far below the norm. Was this due to racist teachers or a bad learning environment?
According to high school approval ratings that analyzed black students' views of their learning environment, no. In fact, 74.8% of black students thought that teachers listened to what they had to say as opposed to just 68.8% of white students. 12.8% of black students "strongly agreed" they felt safe at school, as opposed to 6.7% of whites.
Present Day: "You got your ID? In case they stop you," and "When you get pulled over... this is not about you getting a ticket, it's about you not coming home."
Perhaps the most egregious statements of the commercial, it shows modern day parents warning their children to be extra cautious in their daily lives, lest they be stopped or killed by racist police for no reason.
While this is one of the most popular narratives pushed by the left, it is wholly inaccurate. Studies have shown repeatedly that the number of blacks stopped is under-represented by black crime rates, and a black person is 18.5 times more likely to kill a police officer than the other way around. Unarmed black suspects are three times less likely to be shot by a police officer as opposed to unarmed whites.
Shame on Procter & Gamble for their leftist pandering. Conservative political commentator Michelle Malkin points out their hypocrisy:
Well put. Hopefully P&G will see the results of their divisive marketing soon — a petition has been launched on Change.org calling for a boycott on their products.
Stay alert. Stay alive.