Super Bowl Argument Analysis

819 Words4 Pages
Ever noticed how sexist, racist and homophobic an American can be? If not, watch the Super Bowl. Before, during, and after the Super Bowl commercials that some people see as comedy, but some see these commercials very controversial, air. Coke, 84 Lumber and others have used people’s sex, race, and sexuality to sell their product or to promote their stance on a social injustice, which also helps sell their product or better their image. Sexualizing women, using Trump’s Wall for commerce, and featuring homosexuals in their commercials for publicity. The true definition of an American is similar to the loose definition of a sensationalist: uses social injustices like sexism, racism, and homophobism to falsely improve their image, or to satisfy their own beliefs.
Companies all over the United States sexualize women to sell their product. Cindy Crawford, a legacy in the modeling world, a stunningly gorgeous woman who was very popular in the 90’s. So, she acted in a commercial for Pepsi in 1992 that was played during the Super Bowl.
…show more content…
Recently, President Donald Trump planned to build a wall at the southern border between the United States and Mexico. Furthermore, the company 84 Lumber sided with Trump on the building of this wall. Owner and CEO Maggie Magerko tells People magazine: “We need to keep America safe.” (Bomey, Paragraph 2) But, In 2017 84 Lumber aired their Super Bowl commercial showing a woman and her daughter traveling to cross the border from Mexico into the United States. Contradicting their previous stance on the wall. However, as the mother and daughter arrive, they notice the wall. Blocking them from crossing the border. Then, the camera pans over and the woman sees a door in the wall. She and her daughter enter through the door into the United States. 84 Lumber tried to backtrack their stance on the wall to prevent the loss of business over their previous unpopular

More about Super Bowl Argument Analysis

Open Document