Quote:
Originally Posted by prisonchaplain
As FYI, I didn't see "it" at first either. Further, I'm guessing that despite being located in Missippi, the group did not see the KKK connection, either. Done in humor? No, like most of us, the burning cross was probably nowhere on the radar screen, when this decision to sell this trinket was made.
|
This is why I disagree.
I was an assistant buyer, albeit briefly, for Albertson's. I also had my own publishing business where I wrote/edited/designed numerous ads like the one on the website.
It is a lengthy process to get a new item on the shelves, or in this case, on the website. I have no idea how many buyers the AFA has, if any, but usually there is an extensive analysis of the product, including its provenance, to determine if it will show a profit.
I mention its provenance because it is possible other stores bought the item as well, and if there were any serious complaints about the product, the vendor has to provide that information to the buyer. In this case, the company that makes the cross is the vendor, and the buyer is the AFA.
If the vendor does not provide the item's provenance, including any serious complaints, it is a violation of the contract, and it stands to lose a great deal of money.
Additionally, when editors put put the ads together, they question everything, including the content. If I, as an ad designer, had questioned the content of the ad, in this case the cross, I would have gone to the powers that be, just in case they hadn't seen it. At the point, the PTB would have had to approve it anyway for it to be included in the on-line catalogue.
Frankly, if I had been the ad designer, I would have strenuously insisted they re-think the product. But I am also used to making these decisions on my own, and not having to convince anyone of anything. That is not usually the case for in-house editors, who, in this case, probably got the ad assignment without benefit of questioning it.
On the other hand, the AFA does not appear to be a large company, and usually editors in smaller companies have more say about the product. Obviously there are a number of possibilities here.
But when editors design ads like this one, it goes through at least two or three sets of eyes, because the original writer cannot see errors after working on it for a period of time. Errors pop out at fresh eyes.
I doubt the AFA's process is as tight as what I've described above; however, it has a large product line, and there has to some analysis of each item, including its provenance, or else the company would go under.
I do not believe that not one of the people who saw this item, from inception to inclusion in the AFA's product line and the corresponding ad, did not notice its resemblance to the burning crosses. The item simply goes through too many hands, and in the case of the ads, too many eyes.
Having said that, I noticed the product does not have a price per se; rather, it has a suggested donation that corresponds with the price the item would sell for. So I wonder if the AFA is funded by a parent company where profits are not the goal. If so, that would pretty much negate everything I just wrote. Well, most of it.
Quote:
|
On the other hand, here in the progressive northwest, many Christian churches, included evangelical ones, are removing their crosses. Some use the racial history as a reason. Others say it has lost its meaning as being redemptive, and has come to be viewed as morbid and triumphalist.
|
Okay, I don't get this. How is the cross itself a symbol of racist history? Was it used without it being burned? If so, I did not know that.
Quote:
|
On the other hand, the American Family people might consider giving up the lights, at least, out of respect and as a true demonstration of being "pro-family."
|
I don't understand why people on this thread intimated I am overreacting, yet most of you agree the cross is in poor taste.
Meh*
Elphaba
*"Meh" is one of the new words added to the dictionaries.