I never said he was wrong, but I am contending likelyhood here. That should not be an unfamiliar concept with atheists don't you think?

(August 26, 2009 at 4:13 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: I never said he was wrong, but I am contending likelyhood here. That should not be an unfamiliar concept with atheists don't you think?

Leo, does the fact that Microsoft felt an apology was in order not weigh in my favour?

No. They needed to apologize due to the fact that they know perfectly well that this could blow up in their face if they don't.

(August 26, 2009 at 6:54 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: No. They needed to apologize due to the fact that they know perfectly well that this could blow up in their face if they don't.

I don't follow. Why would it? Allegations of being racist? If so, doesn't that weigh in my favour?

Why would that weigh in your favour of your statement that Poland must have a problem with black people?

(August 26, 2009 at 7:00 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: Why would that weigh in your favour of your statement that Poland must have a problem with black people?

Simple. Microsoft think so and so do I ( not all Poles, obviously ). Plus MICROSOFT must want to avoid any racist labelling.
Do you, as a matter of interest, have a problem with blacks, your country has a large black population and you have your racists too.

What problems would I have?

MS is not apologizing to Poland, but the black people in the US. In fact they are apologizing for cutting a corner and not using a new picture for the Polish campaign, because that is what it boils down to.

Leo, the problem you might have is identifying racism and looking to skirt around it.
Enough for tonight,I'm of to bed. Later....

You are asserting that an ENTIRE country has a problem with black people on the grounds of what ONE company has done in order to save a buck.

And you think that that has merit?

If someone had done the reverse - i.e., altered a photo (or replaced it) to introduce racial variety where there was none (or "not enough"), what might the reaction have been?

This is what I see when I see the first picture:

the age of the black man in the middle (along with his suit) is doubtless meant to convey that he's in charge. The Asian guy is clearly the techie of the group. The woman is the friendly spokesperson/go-between. The presenter has the best laptop, because it's critical to their job. The boss has one (albeit smaller), because he's just supposed to have one, even though he probably doesn't use it much. Also, something like a nice shiny Blackberry (corporate status symbol) wouldn't be visible enough here. The techie doesn't have a machine here because techies are generally perceived to be not very good at communicating, and are in the meeting just to ask/answer a certain class of question. So in a way, the first photo confirms to a quite a few stereotypes, whilst also trying to be "progressive". The positioning of the three actors, plus their body language, is also designed to help convey to a potential customer the sort of image they would expect. For the Polish market they need a more Polish looking picture. That's not racism, that is a simple law of advertisement.

We have adds in the Netherlands with black people in them, because a large part of the Dutch citizens is black. We tend to use Asians less in our adverts, and if we do I sometimes feel embarrassed on how they are portrayed. But no one is pulling the racial card for that.

I think it's presented in the world media that there is racial tension in Europe. Many anti immigrant stories. Reports of the activities and supposed growth of organisations like the BNP. Perhaps though it's an attempt to represent the perceived demographic.