26 Shockingly Offensive Vintage Ads


#1

Prepare to be offended!:beerchug:

26 Shockingly Offensive Vintage Ads - Business Insider


#2

Ooo ooh me too!

I kid you not, this is from my really old mattress handed down through my family that I slept on as a child. It’s a Sealy mattress, and the tag shows slaves picking cotton in a field.

Pic:


#3

[quote=“Trekky0623, post:2, topic:38408”]
Ooo ooh me too!

I kid you not, this is from my really old mattress handed down through my family that I slept on as a child. It’s a Sealy mattress, and the tag shows slaves picking cotton in a field.

Pic:

[/quote]No offense intended, but I gotta’ believe that thing is FULL of all kind of microscopic vermin and critters.


#4

It’s in storage. I don’t sleep on it anymore. :stuck_out_tongue:


#5

Let me see;

Black people picking cotton, still common today.

Black child with poor communication skills, not only still common but the really bad ones at butchering the language are among the wealthiest Americans now.

Men ask “Is She pretty?” before “Is She clever?”, sounds like today only “Pretty” has been replaced with “Slutty” judging by the preponderance of scummy tattoos and piercings.

A husband marvels at his wife’s energy in spite of how hard She works, that is different today. Women despise being married, caring for children and caring for a home while glorifying how much they can emulate the low life. I think our modern views on this are far more “offensive”.

A Black man who works in a service job marveling at the latest luxury car, judging from most rap videos and much time spent in the “hood” I see no difference today. Except all the luxury cars get outfitted with “20’s” and a better sound system as soon as they leave the lot.

A doctor smoking “Camels” more often than any other cigarette? I doubt that, most of the doctors I know that smoke prefer Menthol’s.

A young wife burns the dinner and is upset that her husband will not get a good meal after working all day so her husband consoles her with a joke to let her know it is alright. That is different today, many young women would never cook for anyone to begin with and they tend to marry losers that would never them help mitigate their errors.

Babies drinking soda, sounds like what I see in every fast food joint if I walk in instead of using the drive through.

The outfits in the Van Heusen ad look no more ridiculous that the garbage styled clothes in the “hip hop” culture today. 30 years from now people will probably think the stuff from our time was a Racist stereotype also, but we will know that these idiots are proud of their pants around their ankles and hats on backwards.

An ad depicting men as far better at outdoor, physical pastimes like sports. Last I checked there is still a “Ladies Tee” at most golf courses and no woman has ever made a MLB team or an NFL team, even the Olympics segregates every event between the genders.

A husband spanking his wife? Seems pretty tame compared to the far more violent and degrading things that most girls eagerly volunteer themselves for even for just boyfriends today.

Babies in Marlboro ads portraying how parents should stop and think a moment before punishing kids and a Marlboro is a fine tobacco for this task? Sounds like good parenting advice and good advice regarding tobacco brands as well.

A car ad about women denting up cars? Sounds like today if the dented fender was replaced with a girl texting right before impact or in a ditch at night with 2 babies in car seats talking to the “Onstar” operator in a panic laced, tearful voice.

Tobacco ad where chicks dig guys who smoke? I have not noticed any difference today.

Wives appreciate appliances that make cooking easier, how is that different than today?

A Christmas gift of the best upright vacuum cleaner on the market at a time when cleaning carpets was a grueling job and canister vacuums were the ineffective norm? Sounds like a thoughtful gift to me that would make any housewife’s life a LOT easier, but I guess a modern girl would never dream of caring for her home to begin with so this is out of date.

A tie ad celebrating the fact that neckties are exclusively a “man” thing? Seems pretty tame compared to any episode of the “Man Show” today.

An ad for a skin care product that appeals to the common desire of most women to have youthful skin? How is this different than today’s skin care commercials that have a mother with flawless skin in a bathrobe holding a naked baby with their skin looking near identical?

A clothing ad for men that portrays his ability to win and tame a wild, attractive woman? This is the theme of every man targeting ad today from beer to hair care products to mints.

A girl in a car ad for an automatic transmission? That is different today, most guys today cannot drive a manual transmission either.

A soap commercial with a white baby who thinks a black baby is just dirty, how is this offensive? I see kids being incredibly rude at all ages today and not from innocent ignorance like this ad is portraying.

A feminine hygiene ad that addresses issues that make a woman less interested in sex is “offensive” today? Every other ad on TV is about “Sexual Enchantment” today for both genders and is far more crude in its delivery.

An aftershave ad with an attractive girl is offensive?

None of these ads are “offensive” to anyone other than the brainwashed PC Lemmings that pretend they do not notice what they see every day.

Just because former generations were not too cowardly to honor women who made houses into homes, men who provided for their families, fine tobacco and people who excitedly aspired to bettering their position in life and were not too afraid to portray kids as they actually are as opposed to the PC versions we see on TV ads today does not make these ads “Offensive”.

It makes us a people who celebrate lying to ourselves as a virtue.


#6

What isn’t considered offensive in the West these days? I moved to Britain a year and a half ago and for me and other Eastern Europeans here its striking how many people are touchy about race/gender/deviant issues to an unjustifiable degree, race especially. For example I came across a British sitcom from the 1970s, “Mind your language”, about a London night school teacher trying to teach English to a class of immigrants and showed it to some friends- first they sat there squirming and internally debating whether it’s OK to laugh at a Pakistani and an Indian throwing names like “tandoori takeaway” at each other or a Chinese substituting “r” for “l” and vice versa, eventually they criticised the program for being too “insensitive” and expressed doubt that even back then it had been shown on a mainstream TV channel.

Don’t know how it is in the US, but it seems to me that over here it’s a result of an intense social engineering effort by the government, which clearly is playing a role in pushing these norms on the populace. A university student in Wales was recently sentenced to two months jail time when a court decided some of his twitter posts were racist. Candidates for the mayorship of London (including Boris Johnson from the ruling Conservative party) refused as a “point of principle” to debate with or stand on the same platform as the British National Party candidate (BNP wants to restrict immigration).


#7

Well, I thought they were hysterical. :rofl:
Had to like the VW one insinuating women can’t drive. And c’mon… Like anybody’d get away with that Jello ad saying it was “inexpensive enough to found in the cabins of the old plantation, but delicious enough to meet the standards of good living at the “Big House”” today.

Like Volk said - all due to intense social engineering, people have become so overly hyper-sensitive that nobody can say anything anymore w/o offending someone. And while many complain that P.C. is destroying liberty, little is done to reverse it.

Nothin’ like ruining a good laugh, though.


#8

I think what you hare seeing in Britain is exactly what is happening in the US today. I can understand the restriction of immigration, when it results in tearing down the successful positive culture. And we are, unfortunately, handling illegal immigrants with kid gloves (do you understand that idiom?), while every time someone tries to do something about it, they only end up making things more difficult for the legal immigrants.


#9

Oh Lordy stop being dense. This is supposed to be a fun thread, and you know exactly why they’re offensive.

It’s not black people picking cotton, it’s SLAVES picking cotton.
The black child with “poor communication skills” is a stereotype for stupid black people.

The rest of your complaints are equally pedantic. I’m not going to go through them all.


#10

Of course I know why you are “offended”, that is why I closed that post with this statement;

It makes us a people who celebrate lying to ourselves as a virtue.


#11

So why do you have to bend the truth to make your point? “Black people picking cotton?” Yeah, okay, I know you’re not that dense to not realize that the implication of two black-face drawn people picking cotton is slavery, not just a job these black people had down on Mr. Gunthry’s pleasant farm.


#12

Lets see who is “bending” the truth.

I see black people picking cotton all the time, I never assume they are slaves.

You however assign meanings based on what your twisted Leftist mind wants to see as you admit when you say slavery is “implied”, you are the one “bending the truth”.

You also assume that every reference to slavery is “offensive” while advocating Racism all the time in the form of enslaving the wealthy to give you free stuff and defending Institutionalized Racism like “Affirmative Action”.

So advocating slavery is fine with you as long as it is benefiting the “right people”, but displaying an image that only someone who has never been on a cotton farm would interpret as “depicting slavery” is “offensive”?

You and the rest of the Extreme Left are far more “offensive” than anything posted in these ads.


#13

You’re bending the truth by denying there’s a difference between this:

and this:

http://www.lubpedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Cute-Black-Baby-girl-Pictures-12.jpg

It’s NOT JUST “black people picking cotton,” and you know that dang well. The way they’re drawn, the clothing they’re wearing, and the history of cotton-picking slaves all combine to make it a stereotype. The “blackface” drawings have a long history of being a stereotype for stupid, monkey-like black people, and you ignore all that just to start a row in the thread and show you’re just about the densest person here.

THIS is just black people picking cotton:

The black-faced, big-lipped slaves on the mattress patch are NOT simply picking cotton, and you know it.


#14

There is no difference in appearance between anyone working on a farm before slavery and after slavery, there were no “slave outfits”.

Of course, I am not a Racist so I guess all the “Implications” that a Leftist sees would not affect my thinking.


#15

When I see this I do not assume that someone is depicting all White people as lazy sloths either.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1803[/ATTACH]


#16

Trekky, you crack me up! Truly, you do. The extents you will go to toward making an argument where there is none ought to be entered in a Hall of Fame of some sorts.

My girlfriend and her husband go down to LA to pick cotton every single year. And, oh by all that’s holy, they don’t even get paid for it!!!
Nope. The only return on their time and effort comes in the form of payment for dried flower arrangements she sells that include the cotton. IF they sell.
Pure slavery, that!
And they aren’t near dressed as well as the pic you provided.

Do you actually think that we’re not on to your game?
:howler:


#17

Because there isn’t a history of that stereotype… South Park’s Cartman is not the same as black face.

And yes, there are slave outfits. Besides the obvious black face, most include straw hats and run down clothing, and usually look pleased to be working.

I was holding out hope, but I guess there’s no point. You’ll argue with a brick wall to deny that the sky is blue if it doesn’t fit your agenda. There’s a clear visible difference between the stereotype and reality, and if you deny seeing it, you must be blind.


#18

I think that if you deny seeing a difference between blackface stereotype and an actual black person, then you’re just arguing for the sake of argument.


#19

I hear your side continually depicting Whites as “Rich, white, greedy fat cats who get wealthy on the backs of the poor”.

So slaves wore “black face”?
So slaves wore “straw hats” as a uniform and not as a lightweight means to block the sun then and today?
So slaves wore “run down clothing” in the field but today’s field workers do not?
Enjoying your work is a “slave thing”?

Do you even attempt to contemplate your knee jerk thoughts before you post them?

I often quote you immediately because I am afraid you will notice how ludicrous your words are and that they reveal too much about your real motivations and you will edit them out but now you seem completely oblivious to what your words reveal, I could have come back tomorrow and your post would still be just as ludicrous.

Yeah, I am the one with an “agenda” because I take things at face value but you have no “agenda” because you add whatever ridiculous “implied” editorial you require to everything in order to perpetuate your agenda.


#20

I can’t believe I’m having to explain blackface and stereotypes to a grown man.

What in the name of all things holy are you flipping talking about? When have I ever said anything remotely like this? Hold off on the red herrings and you might get somewhere, because this has nothing to do with stereotypes. I’ve never heard anyone say that white people are “rich, greedy fat cats,” at least not anyone who was not followed with the word “crazy.”

No, RET, stereotypical black people either drawn or played by white actors were depicted as blackface. A dark black face with beady white eyes, big red lips, and big ears all make up this stereotype that is intended to make black people look primitive and monkey-like.

No, the stereotypes wore it. Again.

Are you really going to compare today’s field workers to slaves in terms of conditions? Yes, their clothing was far worse than field workers today.

No, but submission to their masters and complete compliance in being a slave is.

Is there a difference between an actual black person, or a non-stereotypical drawing of a black person, and BLACKFACE “Sambo-like” drawings, RET. Jeez louize, man, why do you have to argue about nothing? The difference between a black stereotype and a a non-stereotype is clear as night and day, yet you insist or arguing about it and denying you see any difference.