This is brilliant. Those commercials have bothered me since day one and I just couldn't quite put my finger on what it was...not even after trying to dissect it with a friend. And when I heard that the cavedudes were getting a TV show I was incensed...but again, wasn't sure why exactly. And my internalized colonizer was telling me that I was overreacting. Gracias for laying it out!

And gracias also to Angry Black Woman for first introducing this topic!

"One of the challenges for ethnic minorities is to see beyond the spectrum of race in each and every transaction of life."

This guy's funny! It could be a whole series: One of the Challenges!

"One of the challenges of poor people is to see beyond the spectrum of money in each and every financial transaction!"

"One of the challenges for disabled people is to see beyond the spectrum of accessibility in each and every transportation!"

Great post.

Only, I don't think that cavemen are an imaginary group of people.

I remember when I was at school in Johannesburg, some researchers "discovered" a real, live Bushman, with much fanfare in the all-White newspapers. It shouldn't have been so surprising, given that Bushmen were believed to have exisited there for thousands of years. (Their inability to write made it difficult to know much about their lives, other than archeological artifacts and rock paintings discovered in the sandstone shelters of the Southern Drakensberg.

Then, in 1980, the Jamie Uys movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy," burst onto the scene, the premise of which was a Sho, in the Kalahari desert, comes upon a coke bottle, takes it back to his people, they use it as a tool at first, misery and fighting results, they begin to see it as evil (prophetic) and in their attempts to get rid of it (by throwing it off the edge of the earth) a supposedly comedic portrayal of what happens when colonial inventions/customs are introduced to an indigenous population ensues. Think of it as one, long, unapologetic Geico/Coke ad.

The similar theme of colonialism's destructive influence is far more intelligently and brilliantly expressed in Chinua Achebe's unforgettable book, "Things Fall Apart."

At the end of the day, the very notion of a caveman demonstrating sensitivity to a negative portrayal is in and of itself an indictment of the intrusion of an imposed value system.

Yes, it's only an ad, but if one actually takes the time to deconstruct it, it seems to be an attempt to make fun of politcal correctness, using a target that can't and won't take offense, seemingly oblivious to the inherent feelings of superiority revealed about its makers, and the same feelings it instills in its desired audience.

Clinton,

To my whiteamericanized brain, the cavemen look a little like the people from the interior of New Guinea. Maybe it's just my imagination, or some of the rotting synapses in the racist part of my brain misfiring. But if that is where the artists got the appearance of the cavemen, then it would be interesting to reflect that those groups, maybe the first settlers of the southeast Asian islands, probably don't have much of a base in the U.S. from which to boycott anybody.

I've never found those caveman commercials funny, just sad and disturbing. I won't be watching that show.

I think that the word that bothers me most is the word "grateful" as in "he should be grateful" or "yessa mister I a suurre grateful that you give me da opportunity to be here, on ya show".

I smell fear and its smell really bad.

Of course I like the GEICO commercial not because of of the apologist behavior but because I identify myself with the Caveman, and I know he is right and GEICO is wrong.

The ONLY reason non-whites have the freedoms and success that they have in the USA is due to the blood, kindness (i say suckerness), compassion, and curiousity of white america.

Um, actually, I think things like the Civil Rights movement had more to do with it. If I remember correctly, white America spent about 350 years enslaving, waging genocidal wars on, stealing land from, lynching, creating laws against, denying the vote to, beating up, etc. brown people. I'd say someone wasn't paying attention in history class, but I see the propaganda they teach there on a regular basis, so I think someone paid a little too much attention.

Where do you find these guys?

Okay, I want to say something about this, but first I should say that I am some white dude, so may very well be deaf or blind to certain racist implications in these commercials (especially the whole "less-developed" trope). Secondly, I feel the need to apologize for the level of dork-out to which I am about to submit anyone who reads this comment. I'm actually a big fan of Geico commercials, as far back as I can remember (I know it's really embarassing to admit that), so I tend to like these commercials and see them as designed to make the viewer sympathize with the cavemen. Now, for an excruciatingly meticulous reading of some of the commercials.

The first one I thought was hilarious. The spokesman guy, who himself looks the part a little too well, tosses out some throw-away line, "So easy, a caveman could do it." Then you see him a restaurant, saying something like, "Seriously, we apologize," in a good, faux-concerned tone of voice. "We didn't even know you guys were still around," he says, hoping everyone will laugh it off. The caveman responds, "Yeah, next time, maybe do a little research." And the look on the spokesman guy's face when he realizes they're not going to accept his apology is priceless. It's seriously one of the best jokes just using facial expressions I've ever seen. The joke, of course, is that the cavemen aren't only "still around," they're quite sophisticated, wearing white linen suits and ordering the roast duck with the mango chutney. Then the other caveman says something to the waiter like, "I don't have much of an appetite, thanks." He manages to convey that he's really pissed off, but also be completely polite to the waiter. That's very hard to do. Then he just glares at the Geico rep and snorts with contempt. It's one of the most well-made commercials I've seen in a long time.

I guess I'm not sure if there's a racist thrust or implication to this or not. Obviously, it's supposed to be funny, in an absurd kind of way, that cavemen are not only "still around" but are well-integrated and successful members of society (who are also sarcastic, which always makes me like someone, so maybe I'm missing the point of the ad because of that). But the Geico rep comes across as smug and insincere, if still somewhat sympathetic. I don't really think the joke is on the cavemen. I think it's more the absurdity of the situation, combined with how extremely well everyone plays their parts.

The video you put above, I think, is clearly sympathetic to the caveman. And I think it's a pretty good satire on the quality of cable news shows. The pompous anchor, the woman with the ridiculous hair, and an atmosphere in which a schoolyard taunt, delivered in a completely unjustified tone of authority and self-assurance, trumps actual historical knowledge. I don't think you're supposed to be laughing at the caveman at all (but, again, I could be wrong).

Same with the ad where he's walking on the people mover (or whatever those things are called) at the airport and sees the big ad. There's some song playing, and it's timed just right so that you don't get to the line "there's always something to remind me," or whatever it is, until just the right moment. Then he walks backwards on the belt, a funny but again somewhat absurdist image, looking at the ad and shaking his head, before letting the belt carry him away. I tend to see these ads as sympathetic to the caveman, and presenting an absurdist type of joke about how, well, absurd society is (I know I've used that word like fifty times here).

Then there's the one where two cavemen are out on a balcony at a party, talking about how of them has sold out by working for Geico. It's a tense exchange, then one of their friends, who seems more vapid, bursts out and says, "Guys, great news! Tina and I are getting back together!" A funny reference to Geico's "I've got good news" series of commercials, but also a good comedic counterpoint. This one, though, I can see being open to a charge of racism, as if they're making light of the existential problems of the cavemen (and no, I can't believe I just wrote "the existential problems of the cavemen" in the course of discussing some Geico commercials, either). (And by the way, what's with all the white jackets, in some cases with the sleeves rolled up to the elbows? Why do cavemen dress like they're on Miami Vice?)

So, I don't know. I tend to think that the commercials are presenting the cavemen as sympathetic, and I imagine the show will do the same (though I also imgine it will be really lame, given that it's on network tv), but I could be missing something.

Well, I think they are funny, too, Jeff. But why? Who are we laughing at? Sympathetic to the caveman in narrative, okay. But aren't we laughing at them and what we know is the uselessness of their constant pretensions and demands? Why? Because in the overall settings, aren't they the ones who are absurd?

And I agree, I do think other things are happening, and clever things, with the writing. Though I think the ads present a vehicle with which we can laugh at the "pet issues" of "ugly" groups of people. Either way, I think I've made the case as well as I can in my voice. I'll let others engage, see what you all come up with.

Jeff,

I agree with almost all of your points, I think. But when I saw the ads at the gym, and not in my safe home space, I found that they made me very uneasy. The gym is diverse, and I like it there, and I didn't feel like laughing at the ads. I remember, months ago, noticing a Black guy laughing at one of them. I felt, well, I'm glad he is enjoying it, but I still felt uncomfortable.

Angry Black Woman crystallized this for me when she mentioned the words "minstrel show." Suddenly it all changed with that frame around it.

Yeah, I've had this sort of conversation before, so maybe my reaction to the ads is just a personal quirk. I've had discussions, for instance, where people said that you're just laughing at Homer Simpson's stupidity, laziness, etc., whereas I think we're, or at least I'm, laughing at my own stupidity, incomprehension, susceptibility to delusions, etc. that are reflected in Homer. Similarly, in these ads, I tend to think I'm laughing at "the uselessness of their constant pretensions and demands," but I think I'm laughing at the useless of my own constant pretensions and demands as a human being, rather than at those of the cavemen as a marginalized group. But I realize that it's because I'm a member of the majority culture that my intuitive reaction to these ads is this abstract, the futility of the search for meaning in the face of an indifferent cosmos and bizarrely hostile society (or whatever my shtick here is), rather than focusing on the injustice of the situation. So, again, this is my reaction to the ads, but I could easily be missing or just not giving sufficient weight to other aspects or consequences of them.

Jeff, sorry, it's tough to talk about and I envy your ability to do so. I am also a fan of almost every Geico commercial I've seen. (The one with the judge getting "good news" right before sentencing some crook was a favorite.) I probably haven't been honest enough here: I enjoyed even the Caveman ads in my own home. I was not 'conscious' about them until I saw them out in the real world. Even then I wasn't sure what to think.

I still think the ads are clever for all the reasons you mentioned. And I do identify with the cavemen in the ads, and I do see the whites in the ads as asshats. I think Geico and the ad agency are probably pretty much trying to get it right. I don't think the whole team at the ad agency is holding meetings saying "let's get those brown guys in a deniable way." I just wonder whether many whites are sensitive enough to get that kind of thing right.

One question is, if the ads are hurting a lot of people, and Geico is informed of that, what will Geico do? I'm a fan of Warren Buffett, who runs Geico's parent company. I believe the man has his good side. I'm betting on him. We'll see.

Like Jeff, I've also enjoyed the geico ads. And I've heard it mentioned this response to them, but I think Nezua put it very clearly, and I am now questioning my response to them.

I can see what Jeff is saying--that the joke isn't on the cavemen but on everyone else. But the more I think about it, even if that's the intent of geico, I don't think that's what's happening. The hint to me, and maybe someone who has more experience in analyzing advertisements and media can tell me if I'm on to something or completely off base, is who is comfortable in the ads and who is uncomfortable. In the majority of the ads, the cavemen are uncomfortable, while we, the audience, are expected to be laughing. Often times, such as in the news report ad, the other people in the ad are comfortable. I don't think, given that situation we are laughing at them. I don't know, it's kind of like are you laughing at or laughing with?

I think these ads could be rewritten to be actually subversive, but I think as they are written it is exactly as nezua has described it.

does my distinction of laughing at or laughing with make sense to other people? does it work with these ads?

Raine,

I like that analysis a lot.

Raine, I think your analysis is in line with mine; I've always found amusement in the commercials because I sympathize with the frustrations of the caveman -- existential meltdowns and all. I blame the internet, actually, because the tropes going on in the commercial are ones most marginalized people see in daily interactions down to the finest wrinkle. And in the end, it does come down to whether you're laughing with the professional figures at the perceived absurdity of the caveman (there's rarely ever a white layman in the commercial) or if you're sympathizing with the caveman's efforts against such a pervasive and deliberate ignorance of what he's saying (it's almost like a modern day comedy of errors).

I think my favorite caveman vignette is his psychiatry visits. Especially the one when he makes her "get it" about why the slogan bothers him.

I don't strongly disagree with anybody's comments; and I have chuckled at the commercials. I'd only add that I don't think we're necessarily laughing either at or with the caveman or the gringos; I think to some extent we're laughing at the very dynamic of group being marginalized and stereotyped by the white mainstream media, and the ensuing discontentment and feelings of powerlessness. Which is kinda funny because it's something we actually see all the time. And which is kinda not funny because, well, it's something we actually see all the time.

It seems to me that the punchline in every ad is actually the contrast between the negative stereotype of the caveman and the frustrated whiny-wounded protagonist whose yuppified ways fail to lift that stereotype: losing his appetite at the trendy cafe, wearing tennis whites at the airport, snarky rhetoric on a TV debate show, having an existential meltdown at the shrink's office, catching a private moment on a balcony at a ritzy party. All these settings imply that the caveman has transcended class and cultural barriers but remains marginalized by his genes, his phenotype.

I think the actor does a great job of selling the humor and the character, which bails the ads out to a large extent; but if you take away his quirky performances, it boils down to a narrative that's, well, questionable: it's laughing about the fact there is a powerless Other, even if we sympathize with the Other, even if we're cheering for his snark and laughing at the dorks around him; as Raine points out, he's not laughing.

Wow, I never thought I'd get so into analyzing an insurance ad campaign. Look what you made me go and do, Nez!

White guy posting.

I had always seen these ads as sympathetic to the cavemen. I've also tended to see the cavemen as a symbol of other supressed peoples. It's as if they said "so easy a [EDITED BY NEZ] slur-of-choice could do it". Or in the airport ad, the caveman was a POC, and the sign was a "white's only" waterfountain? I think I would understand the caveman's eyerolling frustration with a "modern" society that will not appreciate or respect him.

So I was a little surprised at all the apologetics to ABW. How could these folks be so backwards? The cavemen as "oversensitive"? BS. I'd say "underreactive". The big difference is that the cavemen's plight is actually getting some attention.

I never really cared for George, but I dislike so many shows (don't even start me on "reality shows"). And if I understand it correctly, TV is all about money, so I expected that keeping and killing shows should be based on the green. George is right, TV became whiter, and the decision to axe his show is suspect if that network kept other shows with lower ratings.

Semi-OT. Many clean, articulate, white folks tell me that this is Murka, and everyone gets their chance to run the race to success. What they don't see is that the race is rigged. Us whitefolk start further along the track then any brownies, but the race is still measured at the same finish line.

Sympathetic to the caveman in narrative, okay. But aren't we laughing at them and what we know is the uselessness of their constant pretensions and demands? Why? Because in the overall settings, aren't they the ones who are absurd?

Honestly, I found the commercials funny-ironic, not funny-haha, because I thought it was obvious the cavemen were the superiors and that the people around them couldn't see it was testiment to their ignorance and idiocy. By similar tokens, the commercials made me sad and angry, because it seems to obvious to me that these things ARE prevelant and they ARE the result of ignorance and idiocy and they SHOULD NOT be so.

But the underlying helplessness and pointlessness... I didn't really start seeing that until ABW made her post, nor did I see how it insidiously supported the status quo. There's no way to know the opinions of the ad execs, but I'm reminded of Dave Chappelle and his struggles with his comedy show when he realized that certain people were laughing TOO MUCH, and his underlying worry that instead of subverting the dominant paradigm, he was supporting it.

The notes about laughing AT and laughing WITH are good, too.

I think this brings up a deeper issue, though. I am used to and comfortable with the use of satire to critique a society, but in a pluralistic, semi-ill-educated society (and as much as one can say recognizing a satire and irony is an indication of level of education) how much of satire misses its mark and becomes extreme rhetoric?

I have seen, over and over again, people mistaking satire for reality (for example, mistaking Landover Baptists for a real Church, or the Onion for a real newspaper) and reality for satire (I've run across some people where I hoped it was satire until it became clear it wasn't), I think the line has become very blurred. In a world where people are actually opening institutes to support the idea that the universe is geocentric, people actually think "but they did it first" is a valid defense for behavior, and people are actually arguing that a person getting a shot against a STD will make him or her promiscuous, I'm not sure there's much room LEFT for satire.

It scares me that people are beginning to place civil rights across the board (race, gender, class, and romantic orientation) on the same level as tilting at windmills.

Uh, Ill Do Chay, I don't know how Nez or others feel about it, but I got big problems with someone---especially a white guy---coming onto a person of color's blog and liberally using racist slurs, even if it's just rhetorically. I mean, it didn't really advance your argument, so I've got to wonder why you felt the need to include them.

agreed, and stricken. thanks for the heads up, Yolanda.

Ill Do Chay, you've been around here a little bit, and i know where you are coming from most of the time, so i won't "assume the worst," just let you know that if I caused confusion by quoting directly in my post (N-word) sorry about that, but yeah, I'm not keen on seeing those words. And to be honest, as Yolanda said, from a "white guy." Just too much resonance there. And if you follow the link under my quoting of the N-word, you'll begin to see why I quoted it at all, and it was to make a point of how it is sometimes used (as a weapon) in such discussions. There are reasons, but they aren't very nice ones. I don't think those were yours. Let's chalk up to you feeling comfy because I quoted some hate in the post, and not be so ugly of tongue ourselves.

Well Yolanda, I had originally included an apology about the language, but I took it out. I removed it because I wanted that kind of harsh context. Would so-called cavemen call themselves cavemen, like "owning the word? Or would they perhaps consider it a slur(like the "woke up on the wrong side of the rock" slam)? In any case, I am sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings.

Also, I'm sorry if you are left with the impression that I use slurs, because I do not, except rhetorically.

It's a moot point anyway, as Nez edited it. So, thanks Nez, I'm sorry if I overstepped some bounds, and it's cleaner as it now is anyhoo.

PS Why "especially" because I'm white? Who gets to have the privilege of acceptable slur usage ;-)

Clinton, I must read that book. Thanks for linking.

Kai, you went and Pulled a Kai. I have no more to say!

PS Why "especially" because I'm white? Who gets to have the privilege of acceptable slur usage ;-)

I, for one—despite what any "POC" columnist on HuffPost opines—do believe that those who have suffered behind slurs have the right to wield them for description, narrative, or empowerment reasons. And I do believe that the non-existing socially-constructed "white race" does not have that privilege. not since whites first dreamed these words up as verbal traps and blades, as extensions of racist violence.

At least in my blog this is true.

And I am assuming that was not really SO serious a question...that it is obvious as to why I feel this way. It seems obvious to me. You were tongue in cheek, I'm guessing from the smiley face. It's just a tuff thing to "joke" about sometimes. It can be an odd place for humor across racial lines. And I sense from your explanation that you sort of don't entirely get it. But it's okay if white folks dont understand every little thing i do and believe in here. I'd like it, but some things we have to take on experience that we haven't personally had or felt. I think this might be one. Thanks for understanding, amigo.

*hopes for a "Pulled a Kai" gloss entry*

Which is kinda funny because it's something we actually see all the time. And which is kinda not funny because, well, it's something we actually see all the time.

Is it like one of those situations where your immunity to its impact makes it even more dangerous and glaring? Perhaps the fact these commercials can be shown in mainstream media (and lead to a television show, no less!) reflects a callousing of the reactions on both sides. Thinking about that kind of perspective frightens me because it seems like we're all sitting on a mountain of resentment that explodes through our "PC" debates on policy and our harsh policies towards those we decide aren't people. A form of resentment that could see an outlet through artistic and cultural exploration, but we refuse to take interpretations beyond those fields to our social dynamics.

That's what I remember seeing at ABW's when she posted her entry -- less a lack of understanding of what's going on and more an outright refusal to challenge what's going on in those vignettes. It's one thing to know the dynamic; it's another entirely to not accept it as a permanent modus operandi.

Thanks Nez. I'm sure there are plenty of things I don't get, but I am trying*. Thanks for noting the smiley - so much gets lost in intrepretation without those kind of markers. My question was only semi-serious. The serious part was "Would there be a reaction if I hadn't identified as white"?

Best wishes, Bob

*trying to find my blind spots.

Yo, Ill-do-Bob

Well, you can probably infer from my comment on it already, but those words will always grab people's bellies and eyes here. I'm guessing someone would have tried to find out if you were white, because yes, it does matter, a lot, if a Maligned Group Member says one of these words when talking to another Maligned Group Member VS a Member of Group Who First Devised Terms to Malign says it to Maligned Group Member. (For lack of better phrasing, I think you get me.)

I know you are white, already knew you were, and I would have come round to address it sooner or later. And note: I'm not saying that I would have liked those terms automatically because the wielder was not white. It would depend on the use. But I never like them coming from white people. Again, it's obvious why. I hope.

I only didn't catch the words because I'm generally very, very busy on this end, always busy! Juggling child, work projects, comments, moderated comments, blog tweaks, and so on. So Yolanda caught it earlier than I did, is all.

Without others, we would not be able to find our blind spots.

good points, sylvia. and i guess we think alike because this entry in the glosario has been there since i made it, pretty much!

Again, thanks Nez. As I wrote before, I am sorry about upsetting Yolanda and anyone else who it bothered. I will also, as you suggest, keep a cooler lengua. Sorry also about wandering so far from the topic.

And BTW, I don't want to own any of those words. I have enough to do policing my F and S words.

right on. we learn, we're cool.

Hehe, I'm so used to you linking your gloss entries I got spoiled! :D Anyway, my mind's full of blogging and commenting cannon fodder but I have to go study. :( So I'll stop commenting, and...you know. *lingers*

But the underlying helplessness and pointlessness... I didn't really start seeing that until ABW made her post, nor did I see how it insidiously supported the status quo. There's no way to know the opinions of the ad execs, but I'm reminded of Dave Chappelle and his struggles with his comedy show when he realized that certain people were laughing TOO MUCH, and his underlying worry that instead of subverting the dominant paradigm, he was supporting it.

I think that's where I am with this too. I thought they were pretty funny when they first came out. Especially the one Heraclitus (Jeff) points out - the first one. In that, the power balance is nicely delineated, and we get the feeling that the caveman made his point.

The problem for me comes over time, when the futility of his efforts is evident. Most of the individual commercials can be taken, by themselves, and read as funny. They are well constructed. But their pattern is one in which you're repeatedly told "You're being oversensitive, and even if you aren't/even if your complaints are valid, the people in power are never going to get that. (So why bother?)" I do think we're supposed to sympathize with the caveman... but that doesn't make it suck any less. The powerful, dumb people get to have their way and mock the intelligent and refined caveman all they want, and nothing ever changes. That might be an accurate reflection of what happens in society with marginalized groups, but it certainly doesn't make for a more uplifting (or interesting, or funny-with-repetition) message.

In our modern day America, we can't say "those Mexicans are lazy job stealing gangbangers"

...And it will probably get you elected.

With regard to the whole caveman issue though, I really think you (and Angry Black Woman) hit the nail on the head. Living in an ultra-conservative part of the country has somewhat hardened me to being marginalized on a daily basis, (the "callousing", as mentioned by Sylvia), but the fact that a nation-wide ad campaign that smacks of white self-satisfaction has been so successful is disturbing, when you think about it. It's just that, for many of us, in between the legislative attacks on our people and the blatantly racist campaign ads, we don't think about it. We forget about the power of seemingly benign commercial media, which ironically has even more power over our consciousness than the politics do.

The show wasn't even that funny half the time.

That also could be ABC's fault.

The era of the sitcom was discussed on NPR yesterday and it seems that the consuming television audience just doesn't want a formulaic 30 minute comedy show.

But cavemen?

That's low.

Great points, Amanda.

Talking of evolution or lack thereof-

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_CNN_profiles_racist_college_parties_0515.html

horrible.

gee, they really look "Latino," now.

what fools.