1. Mitt is white and so is his family. I don't think he can do anything to change that, nor should he apologize for it.
2. The message about the need for strong families is clearly not directed only to white people. This is a need that transcends race or ethnicity (and color).
3. The video shows what looks to me like a colored woman reading to her daughter. I watched it several times and paused to make sure. So what if everyone in this ad were white? Does that mean that the ideas expressed are bad? Would an ad that advocated abortion on demand, pornography under the guise of freedom of expression, and the liberalization of our nation's drug laws be well received if it was filled with a cast of racially diverse actors?
You know, I could have watched this a dozen times and still not noticed everyone's skin color, or lack of such. It amazes me that it's still even being talked about in 2007. Skin color has become a state of mind, more than a physical trait, hasn't it? Sheesh! It doesn't matter!
Thanks for the correction. The woman reading to her daughter is not white. Also, there is a little Asian girl lined up with the others for the pledge of allegiance.
I don't think I said anything about Mitt being white, or his family being white. Nor did I suggest that he apologize for it. Regarding the message, I sincerely meant what I originally wrote (and that which you echoed in your comments.
Again, my only mistaken observation (after viewing the video once) was that everyone in the ad was white. Instead, only his focus group (sitting around the kitchen table) is white. I still believe that the ad is primarily geared for white evangelical Christians.
Targeting a specific group has no bearing on the accuracy, validity or truthfulness of the message.
5 comments:
Great message. I concur wholeheartedly.
Why is everyone in the ad white? The ad is probably targeting white evangelical Christians.
Interesting observation that everyone is white. One of my husband's personal complaints.
Three points -
1. Mitt is white and so is his family. I don't think he can do anything to change that, nor should he apologize for it.
2. The message about the need for strong families is clearly not directed only to white people. This is a need that transcends race or ethnicity (and color).
3. The video shows what looks to me like a colored woman reading to her daughter. I watched it several times and paused to make sure. So what if everyone in this ad were white? Does that mean that the ideas expressed are bad? Would an ad that advocated abortion on demand, pornography under the guise of freedom of expression, and the liberalization of our nation's drug laws be well received if it was filled with a cast of racially diverse actors?
You know, I could have watched this a dozen times and still not noticed everyone's skin color, or lack of such. It amazes me that it's still even being talked about in 2007. Skin color has become a state of mind, more than a physical trait, hasn't it? Sheesh! It doesn't matter!
Thanks for the correction. The woman reading to her daughter is not white. Also, there is a little Asian girl lined up with the others for the pledge of allegiance.
I don't think I said anything about Mitt being white, or his family being white. Nor did I suggest that he apologize for it. Regarding the message, I sincerely meant what I originally wrote (and that which you echoed in your comments.
Again, my only mistaken observation (after viewing the video once) was that everyone in the ad was white. Instead, only his focus group (sitting around the kitchen table) is white. I still believe that the ad is primarily geared for white evangelical Christians.
Targeting a specific group has no bearing on the accuracy, validity or truthfulness of the message.
Post a Comment