Wow, I guess they didn't believe in privacy back then:

"Top stores in those areas have proved (by checking charge accounts) that New Yorker subscribers are top spenders."

Some things are probably better left buried in the past..

No one (in their right mind) is proud of those days and elicitation of white guilt is still a form of racial depredation in my opinion.

It's depicting a (probably pretty typical) fancy resort. Because New Yorker readers go to fancy resorts. The blackface is incidental.

Wow this is an amazing bit of crazy. I would love to know what year this was made. I think the blank, emotionless expressions on the blackface kids does it the most for me.

Actually, it's mostly likely referring to influx of New Yorkers who crowded the Jersey shore in the 1940's and 1950's, especially places like Atlantic City and Asbury Park. African Americans were often employed in this capacity on the board walks in these areas.

The ad reads "They go to the best places in the best style with bulging wallets..." So it follows that it's depicting a common vacation destination for wealthy New Yorkers at the time.

well, lets assume that it was in the 1930's. those guys pushing the chairs were still paid money to do their job.

its not like they are doing if for free room and food.

Two digit city codes were introduced in 1943 and 7 digit zip codes in 1963, so the ad is from somewhere in that time frame.

Thats some good ol' fashion racism.

I'd say they probably knew their market. The separate chair for the dog is a nice touch.

Of course Al Jolson was appearing in blackface during the 30's and was acclaimed as an artist. It's a very different time.

Hummm...where can I purchase one of them fancy schmancy human powered lazyboys?!

@thebluepill: Good point. I vow to never care about the history of black people or slaves again.

@UniComp:

That isn't the point. The point is this, dredging up a racially provocative advertisement from 80 years ago with no relevance, rhyme or reason other than to stir up controversy is unnecessary.

Do you honestly feel that seeing this today, on a website that promotes consumer awareness, drawn by an artist that most likely died 50 years ago, by advertising staff that are most likely dust as well was beneficial to you and your outlook on racial injustice or history? (excuse the run-on sentence)

@csdiego: And you think people, businesses and government "believe in privacy" now?

How quaint.

@csdiego: I suppose you're right. But back then, I suppose the only "personal information" contained in a store charge account was one's name.

I work in advertising. I really really LIKE working in advertising.

I don't like being made to feel like what I do is evil (even if it is) whenever I read Consumerist.

I'm canceling my subscription to the New Yorker this very second.

@thebluepill: None the less the blog has to be entertaining and informative to retain readers. As someone who is interested in history I find articles such as then extremely interesting.

@tbonekatz: i wonder how many new yorkers were upset that their city was city #18 instead of #1?

I was reading the "Little House on the Prairie" series a few months back and found a place where Laura's father and a bunch of other town guys dress up in blackface for a concert. Granted that was in the late 1800's too.

I'm still waiting to hear that the book is banned from a school library or from being read in school because of that and a few other era-specific practices.

@esd2020: Based on the wood decking, the railing, and the ocean, I would presume it's meant to be a cruise ship. And porters on such ships were typically exclusively black in the '40s and '50s. It's an unfortunate image in retrospect, but that's history for you.

@citking: wait no more... "little house on the prairie," "little house in the big woods" and "little house on plum creek" were restricted in kissimmee florida several years ago when i lived there. the public library made sure to display the restricted and banned books in a glass case in the lobby so kids knew which books to ask their parents to check out for them.
i was told they were restricted due to the scene you refer to and the part in 'plum creek'where Ma Ingalls says 'the only good indian is a dead indian.'

Based on the rolling chairs, I think it's actually the boardwalk at Atlantic City.

Vintage photos from Life Magazine.

@ophmarketing: An ocean liner doing the Atlantic crossing, I'd say, rather than a cruise ship.

@Samantha Brown: Then stay far away from Mad Men.

Wait...you're a woman. You're not allowed to have opinions.

@thebluepill: Advertising certainly is relevant to a website hat promotes consumer awareness. Perhaps the reason for "dredging up" such a provocative ad is to show how much our society has changed. Such an ad would likely not have invoked any controversy among New Yorker readers in the past; modern New Yorker readers most likely would decry such an ad were it run today.
Furthermore, don't forget, this is the same magazine that as recently as last year ran a cover depicting Barak and Michelle Obama as muslim radicals. This ad is more relevant to modern times than you might like to think.

This reminds me of the movie "Ghost World" in which Enid enters in her high school art show an overtly racist logo for a defunct fried chicken chain.

@BenderRodriguez: *that

@mazement: Atlantic City is the first thing that came to my mind when I saw this.

@catastrophegirl - brand new homeowner: Probably nobody.

From what I can tell, city codes were used to divide up a city for postal efficiency purposes.

New York 18 would've become 10018 on the 5 digit system anyway (though, I'm sure that the zip code would be further subdivided, as the mailing address on the ad would now be 10036).

@Samantha Brown: So, you like working in advertising, and don't want to feel that working in advertising is evil. But the only time you are forced to confront this issue is when you read the Consumerist? It isn't something that would enter your mind if it weren't for this website?

Wow.

@mazement:

All of those chairs are being pushed by black people. So it seems The New Yorker wasn't being racist, it was being accurate. Their portrayal of black people wasn't particularly accurate... but then neither was their portrayal of white people in that ad.

Did Ben ever apologize for that photo of the Countrywide CEO in blackface?

New Yorker - tasteless in the 1930s
Consumerist - tasteless in 2009 [consumerist.com]

@thebluepill: My post was sarcastic. A simpler way of saying what I tried to express would be:

"Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it."

We shouldn't bury negative history so that people can feel better about themselves today.

@HiPwr: Our 12th grade english teacher had a lab fee for her class, which was for a year's subscription to the New Yorker. Every week we had to write an essay on an article from it.

Since our teacher was overly prudish, not allowing you to use language like "it sucks" in class, I would always pick the raunchiest thing I could find in there, and write about that, such as plays on controversial topics, or movie review of sexually explicit films. The best is when they published erotica.

I'm hoping people don't need to be told that "sells the people" means "sells to the people".

All of the illustrations and ads of the past need to be filtered through the zeitgeist of the times they appeared in. Honestly, while it is wrong to show the black "servants" in black face (and all of the servants to be depicted as black), it's no less stereotypical than showing the rich people as a cigar-smoking, puffed up man with his plump, matronly wife. The customers are just as much a derogatory caricature as the servants.

In Japan, you know, these sorts of drawings of cartoon characters in black face still appear on products. I was told recently that one of them emblazons a plastic cup full of a big name brand of chocolates that was released recently. So, at least America knows enough to be troubled by this.

@Cant_stop_the_rock: This?

I'm failing to see how this is relevant today? Entertainment based relevancy? Ok, I'll buy that.

ps Consum: why you'd post this crap and NOT post at least a small note about my finding a phishing scheme on Craigslist.com (Jacksonville, FL) is beyond me. I realize y'all libbies and y'all probably hate me 'cuz I call it likes I sees it, (and I'm mostly conservative at least as far as "if I bleed and sweat for this money then it's f***ing MINE and I will NOT give it to poor people just 'cuz they're poor"), but really, you are supposed to be helping protect consumers with this blog, and educating them, and that phishing scheme was really tricky and I'm sure many people are falling for it.

For shame guys, I'm really disappointed in you right now.

@UniComp: Amen to that UniComp!

@wee0x1B: Never said that. But at least there's some nominal pretense of protecting customer privacy, which means that the checking of charge accounts wouldn't be mentioned so baldly in an ad.

@thebluepill: @chargernj: Bluepill is absolutely correct. What's the point unless this is a history history in improved moral obligations and how we've progressed. This article certainly does nothing for my entertaining and informative values. To be honest, I find it appalling that we "whites" acted this one at one time and I am a "white, middle-class" adult who would shun such a business for such gross arrogant behavior. I've always said, "if you're concerned about another's color, then you have too much time on your hands".

@ShariC: "Honestly, while it is wrong to show the black "servants" in black face (and all of the servants to be depicted as black), it's no less stereotypical than showing the rich people as a cigar-smoking, puffed up man with his plump, matronly wife".

True ShariC, but being a depicted as a black servant is more humiliating that being a "cigar-smoking, puffed up "white" man with his plump, matronly wife". Cash is still King in this world and not too many black folk has much of it back then.