This image is an advertisement for an Intel Core 2 Duo Processor. The purpose of this image is to show that buying this product can greatly increase the performance capabilities of one's employees. However, the racial connotations are remarkable visible in the photograph.
For starters, we have the white-collar, white skin-colored male, who represents the employer. The black athlete represents the employee. The two types of figures are used in juxtaposition to place value on workers in relation to their occupational status. The employer is standing tall with a smug grin that is an appeal power. In contrast, the employee is bent over in a runner's stance that can easily be perceived as a bow.
What I find most interesting in the image is that the runners are not positioned to go in the same direction. I assume the advertiser is trying to use the substitution of the athlete to show a fast and forward-moving work model. However, if the runners were to take off as is, they would collide into one another, rather than moving in the same direction toward the company's maximum performance. This decision on the part of the advertiser makes the case for racial suggestiveness even stronger. It seems the "employees" are positioned the way they are as an indexical sign for bowing to a ruler. This decision promotes a connotation of power and submission, which play to racial bondage and white power.
The image's caption reads, "Multiply Computing Performance." Okay, so one could possible argue that substituting black men for maximum computing skills goes against traditional racial stereotypes. At the same time, this is an advertisement for a computer part! Naturally, the advertiser would employ recognizable terms like this one. More importantly though, don't you think using the same black man superimposing all of the employees makes the argument that their work is repetitive or mechanical? Is speed, power, and performance all they have to bring to the table? There are no individualized assets represented in the employees. However, the employer is solely standing there, and he can be the brains behind the plan. He is not working hard at all, but he still manages to supersede the power and assets of the employees.
Perhaps, I am reading too much into this image, but each of my arguments fall into place given the backdrop of American history. I want to close by pointing to the phrase, "your employees." This language is an appeal to human possession... an appeal that finds its root far back in the darkest parts of American history. How did the advertiser manage to miss all of the implications of this ad? And what do ads like this tell us about American culture?
