Kiggundu (pissed off as hell....will now trumpet the benefits of MCI)
Put the other way, it's you who missed the boat. The issue is not whether
AT&T(whatever else that stands for if not racism and Afrohatism) apologized
or not, the misbehaviour for which every right-thinking African should demand an
unequivocal explanation is: why the monkey symbol in the first instance? AT&T
is not just a one-man or one-room outfit where anything happens. It's an organ-
ization built on defined structures of command and communication . So, for them
to just allow such an obvious symbol of racism and hatred to mature from egg to
imago, makes their apology useless. AT&T should institute a high-level investig-
ation into this faceless act and ensure that all KKK's in their ranks and files
are removed, forthwith. Otherwise, any African with sense of dignity should say
bye bye to all AT&T products and services. Period!
Methinks you *are* the one who missed the boat. You should read the first
post and/or the others that have come up since. People are *not* satisfied
with the AT&T apology or at least that is what seems to be the general
flavor of the posts I have seen so far.
And do you really believe AT&T put the ad out out of ignorance?
lk(with the man in the yellow hat) | The value of a definite integral does
--Math Dept, UNH, Durham, NH03824 | not depend on political or religious
--FAX: (603) 862 - 4096 | beliefs. -- Reznick
--e-mail: l...@unh.edu | Quantum Particles: The dreams that
| stuff is made of.
I boycotted AT&T a long time ago when they had the "Reach out world plan".
This plan included every continent but Africa. After useless complaints,
I decided to move to another company. I guess for them, Africa is not in
this world, that's why they can do stupid stuff as depicting us as monkies,
then they turn around and appologize.
LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD THROUGH YOUR WALLET.
I disagree. AT&T was wrong to do what they did, but at least they apologized
for it. How many other companies make such offensive adds and not only refuse
to apologize, but proudly claim that they like their and will not change it!
(Benneton and Chrysler come to mind). AT&T does at least support minorities in
a way most companies flat-out refuse to. They aren't perfect but at least they
try. Most other corporations could give a damn and will tell you so to your
face! I say express your outrage, but be reasonable.
J. D. Fletcher
--<< Generic Disclaimer >>--
The point is *it came out.* They are suppposed to have reviews, and it
"fell through the cracks." A gorilla in Africa, and everyone else is White
and it falls through the cracks. No one is saying, "It's my fault it got
through." No one.
Yo dude, if you believe what they state, can I interest you in some swamp
land in Florida?
----------------------- Signature goes here -----------------------------
Generic witty saying goes here...
Ed Brown INTERNET: .
p00...@psilink.com <-- I speak for me!
Which is why I'm *shocked* that this happened at AT&T.
Do you think AT&T put the cartoon with malicious intent to degrade and
Then redicule them and probably pay them less than their white counter-parts.
Last time I looked in history books, I saw Hitler recruiting Jews to do some
sort of jobs in concetration camps. The result we all know now.
Employing somebody does not mean a damn thing. Shit man the whites crossed
the whole Atlantic to recruit the African population. Should we thank them
Hey, now look who is reacting against racism with racism... I don't
like the AT&T pamphlet any more than the rest of you, but just as it
is wrong to be racist against any "minority" group, so it is wrong to
hate all AT&T employees because of the mistakes (however despicable)
of a few, let alone getting angry at all whites for the racism of
Nathaniel "Ali" Hekman
_/ --\ ******************************************************************
| / "...and he walked the length of Nathaniel "Ali" Hekman
\__^-, | his days under African skies..." Calvin College
\ | 616.957.6144
( / || Paul Simon, Graceland hek...@calvin.edu
A F R I Q U E *************************************************************
AT&T is a big company. It's hard to staff a big company without hiring
a few idiots. And I'm sure this incident is costing them credibility
which took a lot of time and effort to earn. But I think you should look
more closely at the situation before running off half-cocked. AT&T
has been a leader, not a straggler, in the area of race.
If someone knows of a magazine or newspaper where this memo is going
to be reproduced, please post the information to the net. I'd like
to see what this thing actually is. (Which is not to imply any doubt
If your claim is true, one would think they would have been more sensitive
than what they seem to have shown. This means that whatever they had done
re race relations, they may have just succeeded in moving several steps
backwards with this stupidity and they may need to do a lot to regain their
It's unlikely. The graphic in question appeared in an AT&T in-house
'Verily, there be no leader as wise as the Vision!'
Windsor Morgan (mor...@astro.psu.edu OR N...@PSUVM.BITNET)
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
No, 1993! Magazines are almost always postdated, so that people
will continue to buy them at the newsstand until the next issue
is published. _This_ week's issue is therefore dated September 27,
1993, which is the date that _next_ week's issue appears.
>You missed the boat, dude. ATandT immediately apologized for their
>ignorance as soon as it came out.
So everything is alright by your reckoning.Let us turn the other cheek
and be gratefull that an apology has been made.Your smugness is
apalling.We are as mad as hell and everybody should know it.We are
gonna tell the motherfuckers a piece of our mind,apology or not.Dont
pull this close-our-eyes-and-let-us-pray shit on us.Just goes to show
the persistance of white America in streotyping Africans.And we are
supposed to shut up.And yet all hell breaks loose when Farakhan talks
about whites and Jews.What a load of crap!
AT&T not only apologised without reservation for the thoughtlessness of the
error, they also sacked the artist and the design company. Their explanation
that the editors simply didn't spot it sounds quite reasonable considering how
much they stand to lose just in the way of PR by the whole episode. I doubt
they specifically set out to insult their clients and staff.
Sorry to waste bandwidth, but when I stated "it came out," I was
referring to teh company wide distribution. The fact that it became known
outside of the company is a non-issue. The cartoon was "published" with the
gorilla in Africa.
>Bulls Superfan "Men will lie on their backs, talking about the
>P. Ialamanna - fall of man, and never make an effort to get up"
>pa5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu - Henry David Thoreau
Well, if we are going to play the blame game, maybe you should also thank
all those other black Africans that helped the white man "recruit".
In article <1993Sep22.1...@gmuvax.gmu.edu>, sgeb...@gmuvax.gmu.edu writes:
>Excccuuuuuuse me?! The magazine, known as Focus, gets distributed
>to over 300,000 AT&T employees all over the world. fyi, the ad is
>also on TIME magazine now. Still, you (conviniently?) tried
>to question the merits of the magazine instead of the motives
>behind the ad.
(+ several lines which have *nothing* to do with my post)
Interesting. What I posted dealt with a question which was
(paraphrased): What are the chances of seeing the ad?
My answer appears above. Some comments:
(1) My answer was intended to serve as an indication that I thought it
was unlikely we would see the ad.
(2) My answer was posted before I heard that Time magazine published
(3) My answer has *nothing* to do with the merits of the ad or the
(4) If Mr. "G." wants to get on a soapbox to state his views he is
most welcome, as long as he doesn't do it at my expense by reading
between the lines of something I did not write.
Apparently, some people do think that. They actually seem to think that
high level management at a giant company actually keeps track of what goes
in an employee newsletter.
Let me guess, these are the same people who still think that James Jordan
was murdered by white people in a conspiracy to kill black role models.
>you suggested that the
>cartoon had appeared in the September 27 1993 issue (current) of Time magazine
>Well I carefully combed the magazine and the ad was not there.
I never said it was an ad. As you correctly pointed out, I stated that it
was a cartoon, and that is how it appears.
>Do you know which page it was on
>if at all it did appear.
Instead of gratuitous insults, why didn't you send me e-mail offline,
so that I could have sent you a copy of the page bearing the cartoon
(not ad) by fax or U.S. Mail.
The cartoon is on page 17, in the THE WEEK section.
>Maybe the Time authorities
>managed to get rid of the ad before it reached the West and thus diffuse a
>very explosive situation.
Maybe. But if the cartoon is not in your copy, here is a more
Magazines like TIME try to maximize advertising revenues by
publishing many different regional editions, each with their own
editorial and advertising content. This is particularly true of
the international editions of TIME. Thus it is possible that the
cartoon appeared in my edition but not in yours simply because your
local editor, needing space for yet another ad, decided to cut
the cartoon because it was the right size and appropriately
placed in the magazine.
Incidentally, that is why I did not give the page number in my
original posting--it will not be on the same page in every edition.
Please would you let me know whether the cartoon is in your edition
and, if so, on what page. Thank you.
P.S.: You posting began as follows:
> In your response to Stephen R. Schach's message,
If you look at that message, you will see my full name Stephen R. Schach
at the top, and the shortened form of my first name, Steve, at the bottom.
In other words, Steve and Stephen R. Schach are the same person. I was _not_
replying to my own message :)
Page 17. You probably missed it because you were looking for an ad. It's
not an ad. It was an illustration in an internal AT&T publication, for
employees only. It's in _Time_ because they are reporting on the incident.
Does anyone here know anything about this publication? From the few
companies I've worked at with internal publications, they are usually
*NOT* tightly controlled by management. I would guess that this illustration
came as a big surprise to them, too, and that they probably first saw it
the same time everyone else first saw it.
Next question - which edition of Time is it in? I couldn't find it in the
International Edition, but it might well only have been printed in the US
edition or something.