to,

refers "a dimension of meaning in symbolic behavior which is not given in its immediate and manifest significance but in what the action connotes for the audience that views it." For example, the burning of a draft card is less noteworthy for its instrumental abuse than for its symbolic significance. Gusfield maintains, "A courtroom decision or legislative act is a gesture which often glorifies the values of one group and demeans those of another." Thus, laws maintain the pecking order.

Likewise, TV commercials and magazine advertisements of the type referred to symbolically reaffirm the inferior social status of Mexicans and Mexican Americans in the eyes of the audience. Exaggerated Mexican racial and cultural characteristics, together with some outright misconceptions concerning their way of life, symbolically suggest to the audience that such people are comical, lazy, and thieving, who want what the Anglos can have by virtue of their superior taste and culture. The advertisements suggest to the audience that one ought to buy the product, because it is the duty of a member of a superior culture and

race.

Racist Messages and the
Mass Media

The symbolic function of advertising is one level of understanding the racist implications of the mass media, especially regarding the Mexicans and Mexican Americans. For another way of understanding, we turn to Marshall McLuhan. In his attempt to explain the influence of technological changes in communication, he told us, "The medium is the message." Later, of course, he termed

it, "The medium is the massage," but the meaning is essentially similar; that is, what is said is less important than how it is said. As we move from the spoken, to the written and to the televised, the media someway, somehow transforms our thoughts about ourselves, other persons, places, and things, as well as our relationship to them. The written world and the televised world (together with movies) have brought us closer to one another than the spoken world. Consequently, we are supposedly becoming involved in a "global village."

However, if McLuhan had been more sensitive to prejudicial racial and cultural stereotyping, he might have felt less inclined to shift attention away from what is both said and pictured, especially in commercials and ads, regardless of media. Simply because different cultural and racial groups are brought into the close proximity of our minds does not automatically lessen the influence of cultural relativism-we see different cultural and racial traits through eyes that are conditioned to see goodness and beauty as they are defined by our own cherished culture. We see beauty in things that we have come to accept as beautiful. That which is especially different from our own standards of beauty is often deemed distasteful. Television travelers and magazine mobiles take with them sacred values and beliefs that influence them to perceive selectively and interpret in a consistently self-fulfilling manner. A Peace Corps worker sometimes labels a foreign country as "primitive", an impression likely to be shared by television and popular reading audiences who judge from similar value standpoints.

Advertising media that utilize Mexicans and Mexican Americans selectively present and exaggerate racial and cultural characteristics. The consequence is logical: an ethnic group is portrayed in a manner that renders esteem to the values and beliefs of the audience and, conversely, the ethnic group is perceived as "naturally inferior." To find nothing objectionable or distasteful about advertising's image of Mexicans and Mexican Americans suggests tacit agreement with the image.

No matter what medium sends the message, the content and context of the message still have important ramifications, which in some cases supersede the importance of difference in media. Whether or not the "Frito Bandito" is pictured in a magazine or seen on TV (although the impact may be more widespread over the latter), he still reaffirms the inferior social status of the people he is supposed to represent, which, to judge from advertising, encompasses everyone of Mexican descent. When Camel cigarettes presents a "typical Mexican village" in one of their commercials, it may, in McLuhan's sense, serve to involve the viewers in their village life. But, what kind of village life is shown? All of the residents are either sleeping on the boardwalk, or walking around seemingly bored. The involvement, in this case, is one of the Anglo American sensing superiority over the lazy Mexican villagers.

If we assume that the content and context of a message, as well as the medium, are extensions of man's thought system, then the conclusion is logically inescapable: almost all advertisers presently utilizing Mexicans or Mexican Americans to sell their prod

ucts are exhibiting racist thinking.

Not only are advertisers exhibiting racist thinking at the expense of everyone of Mexican descent, but they are also creating, in many cases, unfavorable racial and cultural stereotypes in minds that previously did not harbor them. When the image of an ethnic group is consistently similar throughout the mass media, there is the strong suggestion to the viewer that there is some validity to the image. Add to this power of suggestion the feeling of superiority that is aroused when another group is portrayed as inferior. Then the result of such an insidious combination of forces might be the expectation, sprinkled with some desire, of perceiving the ethnic group as having many inferior traits, the worst one being that they are what they are -a mass of inferior traits. Individual members of such a group should not be expected to be exempt from these inferior traits (except perhaps in a very few cases) because this is how prejudiced minds think.

Whether or not this prejudice was learned through advertising or parents, the effect is similar. Even unprejudiced parents (of which there are few) are not equipped to counter the steady and subtle bombardment of prejudicial suggestions that advertisers conveniently communicate to their children. To many children, the "Frito Bandito" is highly representative of Mexicans. Besides, they can always have some fun calling the Mexican kid at school, "Frito Bandito."

Advertising is a significant part of what C. Wright Mills called the cultural apparatus, which involves all mass media. The control of the cultural apparatus has important

implications, as pointed out by Harold Cruse in his book, The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual: "Only the blind cannot see that whoever controls the cultural apparatus-whatever class, power group, faction, or political combine also controls the destiny of the United States and everyone in it." That is to say, advertising, at least in the treatment of Mexicans and Mexican Americans, is an exercise in reaffirming the superior social status of one group (guess which one) and the inferior status of another. Advertising, then is a tool of racist elites.

Where Lies The Blame?

Since advertisement is commonly conceived as a product of the advertising agency, there might be the tendency to put the bulk of the blame for creating and supporting racist notions on the agencies, rather than the advertiser. I say "blame" instead of "responsibility" because neither group could be considered socially responsible when they collaborate on racism.

It would be a simple explanation, not warranted by the complexity of the situation, to suggest that advertising agencies are amoral, image-exploiters, freely damning the image of anyone they damn please, or at least those who cannot damn them back. This is rejected out of hand, because advertising men and women are very much concerned with making a beautiful moral image of not only the product, but also themselves.

Indeed, the advertising men and women see themselves as the most beautiful kind of people. It is not out of lack of insight, for instance, that Joseph Bensman in his book, Dollars and Sense, conceptualizes the psychological state

of advertising men in terms of narcissism, which is an intensified sense of self-love. In his job, the advertising man must convince the public of the product's superiority. All the while, he must keep his cool. To "crack" is to admit weakness and invite failure, admitting that one is human. Under such working conditions, it is useful to develop the self-image of a "superman", in order to be really successful. The superman hangup, as we learned from Nazi Germany, is racist in nature, and scapegoating is taken for granted. The advertising supermen and women no doubt feel at ease in making an ad in which the advertiser, their client, finds no objectionable features, but which nevertheless casts someone of Mexican descent in an unflattering and stereotypical role.

An important point, however, is that ads are sold to clients; clients buy ads. The question then becomes, why are so many different kinds of corporations (See chart) willing to be sold ads which support racial and cultural prejudice against people of Mexican descent? Searching for the most logical answer, the logic of illogical prejudice on the part of the corporations and advertising agencies is glaring.

This prejudice was probed by students in a racial and cultural minorities course, who wrote critical letters to firms who paid for commercials and ads that communicate racism. Not unexpectedly, the Frito-Lay Corporation was high in the racist standings. Their written reply took the following form:

In response to your letter dated February 25, we did not and never have had any racist intentions in presenting the Frito Bandito cartoon character. It was meant to be

a simple character which is intended to make you laugh, in turn we hope that this laughter will leave our trademark implanted in

your memory.

Again, our apologies if we have of

fended you.

Very truly yours (sic)

Director of Advertising
Frito-Lay Corporation

Tell this to the Mexican American kids. They have the Frito-Lay Corporation to thank for adding another racial stereotype to our language.

Why would a business firm care so much about implanting their trademark "in your memory", when the implantation is fertilized with the seed of prejudice against Mexicans and Mexican Americans? Again, is it really necessary to spell out the most logical answer?

Returning to the symbol of their racism, simply because the Frito Bandito is supposed to be a comical character, "to make you laugh", we might ask, is humor less harmful or more insidious than outright verbal statements expressing deeply held racial prejudice? Why are there so few, if any, jokes about rich AngloSaxons? And does it make any difference if some of the members of the victimized group itself freely laugh at the jokes about themselves?

Noting the rise in "Polish" and “Italian” jokes a few years ago, a reasonably sound answer to these questions came in the form of B'nai B'rith's denunciation of all racial and cultural jokes on the ground that jokes which ridicule exaggerated ethnic group characteristics promote ethnocentric thinking. Inasmuch as Polish and Italian jokes are usually similar,

and often exactly the same except for the name, there is good reason to deem all ethnic jokes as ethnocentric.

Jokes in the form of comical characters seem to mislead the audience, as all ideal-types do when they are based upon biased data. The audience is deluded into thinking there is enough likeness between the comical character and his ethnic affiliations to render the character believable.

Freud believed that humor was a reflection of unconscious, repressed feelings. Our true feelings are those which, due to social pressures to conform and not ruffle others too often, we seldom make known or put forth as seriously-held beliefs. Many of the same people who claim not to be prejudiced easily laugh at ethnocentric jokes, and are amused by stereotyped characters (include audience reaction to Jose Jiminez here). Does our laughter betray us? It most certainly does.

Others contend that it is healthy and harmless to laugh at oneself. However, it depends upon what aspect of self is being laughed at.

For instance, if a person such as Jimmy Durante makes fun of his big nose because it is uniquely structured and smiles at people, then this is not psychically damaging to him. If, on the other hand, a person makes fun of his nose because he believes it to be an easily recognizable sign that he is a member of an ethnic group which he is somewhat ashamed of, then this person is temporarily identifying with the superior group which looks down at such obvious traits. Self-ridicule in this latter sense is a form of selfhatred.

Shakespeare might differ with me: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet." Yet, why do we call loved ones, "Honey"? Does not "Honey” suggest an image of something? Call her "Vinegar" and watch her reaction. Apparently, the Bard did not appreciate the influence of labels upon our perception and thinking. Ponder the thoughts of Erdman Palmore: "It may well be that if a rose were labeled 'stinkweed', it would be perceived as smelling less sweet." This idea tends to cast doubt on Shakespeare's insight into and sensitivity toward racial stereotyping, not to mention the forces that keep racial prejudice alive. But, then, he contributed his share through his creation of "Shylock."

The Brown Shadow

Today, no major advertiser would attempt to display a black man or woman over the mass media in a prejudiced, stereotyped fashion. Complaints would be forthcoming from black associations, and perhaps the FCC. Yet, these same advertisers, who dare not show "step'n fetch it" charac