|
Post by spaceflower on Jan 21, 2018 0:03:47 GMT
A sweater with a picture of a monkey and the text "Coolest monkey in the jungle" has caused an uproar along the world. I've seen a picture of the ad. A cute little boy in the sweater. But he was dark... www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-42708157OSometimes I think people love to hate. Of course H&M had no racist motives, they were just naive. I don't give much for so called anti-racists who threaten the little boy's family. Freedom of speech, anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jan 21, 2018 0:28:48 GMT
Actually I thought that it WAS racist .. though I also thought that it was probably not deliberate.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Jan 21, 2018 10:47:36 GMT
If they had just shown the jumper on its own, would it be racist because it could be worn by a black child?
If they had used a white child as a model, everything would have been ignored.
So, in the end, what people are objecting to is that they did use a black child to model the sweater. That's racist?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jan 21, 2018 10:50:53 GMT
Without a doubt, it is hurtful to black people. For years, they have endured monkey chants at football matches and here is an advert that reinforces that stereotype, that black people are just overgrown monkeys. America loves to play the freedom of speech card but most other countries have hate laws. Britain has the racial hatred act of 2006 and Sweden too prohibits hate speech.
I'm astonished that the advertisers didn't think this through and I feel very sorry for the young lad.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jan 21, 2018 11:01:21 GMT
Black people are monkeys and less evolved than white people. What's not to get?
The fact that it's on a kid isn't the point. And the intentions of H&M and the model's mother aren't the point. White parents can call their kid "you little monkey" lovingly. So can black parents, in fact. But for a white person - innocent, well-meaning - to call a black person a monkey will definitely call up memories, among those aware of it, of racist white people putting down black people for political, social or economic advantage. Slavery, apartheid, all that.
Not hard to get, and not hard to avoid.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jan 21, 2018 12:00:23 GMT
That said, calls for boycotts of H&M and the damage done to stores in South Africa are also wrong, because they do presume intention to be racist which is very unlikely to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Jan 21, 2018 13:04:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jan 21, 2018 13:36:23 GMT
Why are people overreacting so? The violence is very, very wrong but I don't believe they are overreacting. Millions of black people will be offended by the photo and they have every right to react strongly.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Jan 21, 2018 13:45:44 GMT
In this case, racism is in the eyes of the beholder. A racist sees this connection, someone who has been exposed to racism sees it. But I would not see it, not before thinking. So the people behind the advert maybe were too innocent and naive to see it. I was just thinking the same thing. Things only remain offensive because people are offended. The biggest problem these days, especially with the Internet, is that so many people want to be offended and run about, looking for things to be offended by, even if they were not made that way or about them. I just wish these people would put so much effort into fighting against the real problems in the world!
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Jan 21, 2018 13:54:34 GMT
Why are people overreacting so? The violence is very, very wrong but I don't believe they are overreacting. Millions of black people will be offended by the photo and they have every right to react strongly. If it had been pointed out, then H&M had admitted that it was just something that had slipped through the net and issued an apology, should they still be offended? If it's entirely coincidence and no malice was ever intended? I'm assuming the whole monkey thing in this context is referring to an underdeveloped human (a child). I used to be called that all the time. It's a common enough phrase and, if you're not in the mindset of being racist, it's only a matter of time before these elements can come together. Probably only couple of people have seen the image before it went live; a photographer and the person who uploaded it. If neither of them even thought about the connotations then who's at fault? They probably process dozens or even hundreds of images a day and can't sit and think for hours about who might be offended. By all means complain and have it removed, but to go and vandalise shops because of a mistake is really not on as far as I'm concerned and only reinforces peoples views of the unfortunate people affected by this.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jan 21, 2018 18:25:41 GMT
I have already said the violence is very, very wrong. If it had been pointed out, then H&M had admitted that it was just something that had slipped through the net and issued an apology, should they still be offended? That hasn't happened, most people will not be aware that H&M have apologised. In practice, less than 10% usually see a rebuttal or an apology. Those who have not seen the apology have every right to be offended. Probably only couple of people have seen the image before it went live; a photographer and the person who uploaded it. If neither of them even thought about the connotations then who's at fault? That's not how these adverts get out. The concept is discussed with a dozen board members (or top marketing directors) and the final advert is approved by half a dozen board members before it is approved and released. I'm sceptical that none of them made the obvious connection. It's much more likely they thought they could get away with it. But even if it did pass them by, they are responsible for the hurt and have to pay the price for it. That's why adverts are always approved by board members.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jan 21, 2018 18:30:14 GMT
The biggest problem these days, especially with the Internet, is that so many people want to be offended and run about, looking for things to be offended by, even if they were not made that way or about them. I just wish these people would put so much effort into fighting against the real problems in the world! Yeah, stop being offended by monkey chants at football matches, stop being offended when people call you a n-----, stop being offended by racism and just accept that you're inferior.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jan 21, 2018 23:13:53 GMT
Gotta go with Steve and Joe on this one. The racist connotations on the jumper were obvious - as I said, probably not intentional but someone ought to have picked up on it before it went out.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Jan 22, 2018 0:46:13 GMT
The biggest problem these days, especially with the Internet, is that so many people want to be offended and run about, looking for things to be offended by, even if they were not made that way or about them. I just wish these people would put so much effort into fighting against the real problems in the world! Yeah, stop being offended by monkey chants at football matches, stop being offended when people call you a n-----, stop being offended by racism and just accept that you're inferior. I don't get that conclusion. They made a sweater with the words "Coolest monkey in the jungle" (a variant of "Coolest cat in town") and people have the right to be offended? I don't think H&M thought "they could get away with it", since it cost them money. The little boy maybe even chose the sweater himself among the clothes b/c he liked it. He is too young to have met racism yet. Should they have said "No, this is not for people like you, only for white children?" The fact that they have darkskinned children as models is b/c they want to be open-minded and show that the clothes are for all, we are multicultural. The problem is that they did not have any blacks employees who would have informed them. (There are not that many black people in Sweden.) H&M are not racist but rather ignorant. And political parties and trouble makers were happy to use this mistake for their own reasons. I think one should distinguish between blatant racism that is offending and what people might feel offended about. And not call anything "racism", that is a devaluation of the word.
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Jan 22, 2018 8:26:42 GMT
I have to agree with SF on this. I had always seen the UK as a place where racism and the knee-jerk reactions towards even perceived racism was nowhere near as bad as they are in the US which has it's very troubled history of racism and segregation that still persists today for a multitude of reasons, but I guess I was wrong.
If someone calls you a slur it does not mean they are right, and your reaction to that slur is the only thing that gives it any power. If someone throws a slur randomly (and maybe even innocently, as I am sure the case was here) in the air and you grab that and take offence, it says at least as much about you as about the person who said it.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jan 22, 2018 9:19:09 GMT
It's Nordics vs Brits!
With Col as a Nordic or on the fence.
And in some ways I'm being a South African here.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jan 22, 2018 10:55:09 GMT
Yay!
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Jan 22, 2018 11:28:16 GMT
The biggest problem these days, especially with the Internet, is that so many people want to be offended and run about, looking for things to be offended by, even if they were not made that way or about them. I just wish these people would put so much effort into fighting against the real problems in the world! Yeah, stop being offended by monkey chants at football matches, stop being offended when people call you a n-----, stop being offended by racism and just accept that you're inferior. This is by no stretch what I meant; I do not think that people are inferior! What I meant is that people make offensive comments to cause distress. If you accept that the person throwing the insult is a moron/troublemaker and just reject and ignore it for the nonsense it is, it has no power. It doesn't fix the underlying stupidity of the name-caller, but with no reaction, people get bored and go and find something else to do. The reaction is what they are after. My other point was about the people who see something, realise it can be read in an offensive way and run about shouting "Look at this! It's offensive! Come and be offended, even if it doesn't apply to you, or wasn't deliberate!" They are stirring the pot; spreading the hate; increasing the impact; instead of getting it removed and minimising it.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Jan 22, 2018 11:39:22 GMT
It's Nordics vs Brits! With Col as a Nordic or on the fence. And in some ways I'm being a South African here. I identify as a citizen of planet Earth. The man-made groups and borders are the problem. It's human nature to create them, but it's our duty to tear them down!
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jan 22, 2018 18:39:53 GMT
Shall we just fight it out with pitchforks?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jan 22, 2018 19:39:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Jan 22, 2018 19:42:14 GMT
Knives is the Nordic way.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jan 22, 2018 19:47:56 GMT
We will have pitchforks, you can have knives
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Jan 22, 2018 19:53:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Jan 22, 2018 21:49:36 GMT
Finnan haddock at 20 paces! (Bet no one gets that reference!)
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jan 23, 2018 0:16:43 GMT
You're quite right . Though I do have a fillet of fish that I could throw at you?
|
|