I don't see how culture and context should be the definitive explanation for whether the image is racist or at the very least harmful to the image of black communities. If you rely on the crutch of being mindful of culture and context you remove the ability to discuss whether any action performed by an individual or society is in the best interest of a human's well-being. If there were some culture out there that celebrated sex with minors as a coming-of-age ritual then I think we can all agree that practice crosses a red line, not everything relating to culture and context should be upheld as infallible. Mind you I'm not trying to relate the act of pedophilia to the advertisement image, I'm just illustrating an extreme to show that a red line exists. The discussion should revolve around whether or not the advertisement crosses this line and why.
Having said all of this, I don't appreciate the dismissive comments of people being offended by this image or that it is only white people that are getting up-in arms. We know the woman is suppose to be covered in charcoal and the color of her lipstick is suppose to represent the Dunkin' Donuts logo, but it isn't far fetched that the marketers were also trying to make a connection to blackface when all the elements of the advertisement put together give something strikingly similar. It's not like the image of blackface exists in a vacuum in the Unites States either. The blackface caricature spread internationally and can easily be found used as logos or advertisement in areas where the black population is non-existent. Don't be surprised when people are disturbed to see an image born out of racism spreading out and changing into something used to sell doughnuts.
I gotta apologize for the comment binge of my part; don't log in very often so I tend to miss a lot xD.
I see what you're saying man, but this actually touches on another issue altogether. It's a question of what do we do as a society to deal with these relics of the past. We can either throw them away in a vault and make it taboo, or we can reintroduce them but alter the connotations to be positive instead of negative.
If you go the former route, all you're doing is giving them more power, b/c people are naturally going to be interested in something you tell them is off-limits. But if you do the latter, you may get some missteps (this ad could be seen as a misstep I suppose, depending on your view), but over time the effort will solidify itself and for future generations those things will have a positive connotation.
Take the "n-word" for example; the fact I had to censor it just now out of fear if I could get banned for using it (in a historical discussion context) says a lot about the power the word has even still, but because we've made it taboo instead of actively changing its connotation into a positive. "Nigga" may be used by some as an insult ("That nigga's dumb" i.e "That fucker's dumb"), but for me and plenty of people these days regardless of race, as a positive ("What's up my nigga" i.e "What's up my friend"), tho it is a generational thing.
Which feeds back into my earlier point; young people just don't have much power in society, it's really the older zealots who do, and it's their beliefs and values that are status quo..even in the risk of proactively taking negative stereotypes and making them positive. I'm generalizing yes, but it's for the sake of making the point.