"Coolest monkey in the jungle!"

wanderlust wrote:

Keegan wrote:Hi guys. As the "Token Black" allow me to give my point of view on this topic. The United States has enjoyed a position of prominence in the field of racism for many years. It was legal to hunt Negroes (not exactly what it said on the license) at one point,  and in some States negro babies were used as alligator bait. They were routinely referred to as monkeys and apes. In fact, that is how the Monkey Wrench got its name, being invented by a Negro. Years of progress led to racism being submerged significantly, but the current administration made it popular again, due in part to the current leader's Dad being involved in the most notorious racist organisation in the US. 

Look up David Duke and his tweets telling the President to remember who put him in office. It is common knowledge that in Spain, Italy and Russia in particular, black players are oftentimes called monkeys/apes and have bananas thrown at them - even by their own supporters. With this in mind, using a young black child to model a shirt that says the wearer is a monkey, is insensitive at the very least, and in poor taste. 

A Caucasian child wearing that shirt would have raised no eyebrows but with racial tensions as they are in the US, it must have been intentional, because big companies tend to have teams that look into potential PR issues.

Finally, the mother of the child in question has come out in support of the company, saying it was never their intention to be racist and that she had no issue with it. The child is hers and has the right to decide what modelling huh A he does, but she does not own the feelings of all black people. I believe the company (that is, whoever was responsible for approving the Ad campaign) is either racist or deliberately toyed with racism to cause controversy and raise their public awareness. Neither is acceptable in a racially charged climate such as this. I won't be discussing the use of the "N word" because it wasnt used in the campaign and I understand the challenges involved in explaining its use among black people.

Correct me if I'm wrong Keegs, but what is considered offensive varies from culture to culture, person to person, who is saying it and also varies over time doesn't it? 

Question I have for you is, are there things that your friends and relatives might call you that isn't offensive because it comes from them, but would be if it came from someone else? In Greece for example, "bastard" is a term of endearment, but only from the right people in the right circumstances, similar to the use of the N word in old school rap music.

To that end, is it not the case that the real definition of a racist comment should NOT be based on the actual comment/word itself but rather on the context and intention of the person saying it? 

I think that's why "politically correct linguistics" are such a minefield to get sorted because when we get down to analysing a person or newspapers "intentions" we almost always enter the very same world of stereotyping and assumption.

On that basis I don't think the problem will ever go away, but at least recognising that some things will offend some people some of the time in some circumstances might eventually ameliorate the issue of insensitive marketing.

Keegan wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Keegan wrote:Hi guys. As the "Token Black" allow me to give my point of view on this topic. The United States has enjoyed a position of prominence in the field of racism for many years. It was legal to hunt Negroes (not exactly what it said on the license) at one point,  and in some States negro babies were used as alligator bait. They were routinely referred to as monkeys and apes. In fact, that is how the Monkey Wrench got its name, being invented by a Negro. Years of progress led to racism being submerged significantly, but the current administration made it popular again, due in part to the current leader's Dad being involved in the most notorious racist organisation in the US. 

Look up David Duke and his tweets telling the President to remember who put him in office. It is common knowledge that in Spain, Italy and Russia in particular, black players are oftentimes called monkeys/apes and have bananas thrown at them - even by their own supporters. With this in mind, using a young black child to model a shirt that says the wearer is a monkey, is insensitive at the very least, and in poor taste. 

A Caucasian child wearing that shirt would have raised no eyebrows but with racial tensions as they are in the US, it must have been intentional, because big companies tend to have teams that look into potential PR issues.

Finally, the mother of the child in question has come out in support of the company, saying it was never their intention to be racist and that she had no issue with it. The child is hers and has the right to decide what modelling huh A he does, but she does not own the feelings of all black people. I believe the company (that is, whoever was responsible for approving the Ad campaign) is either racist or deliberately toyed with racism to cause controversy and raise their public awareness. Neither is acceptable in a racially charged climate such as this. I won't be discussing the use of the "N word" because it wasnt used in the campaign and I understand the challenges involved in explaining its use among black people.

Correct me if I'm wrong Keegs, but what is considered offensive varies from culture to culture, person to person, who is saying it and also varies over time doesn't it? 

Question I have for you is, are there things that your friends and relatives might call you that isn't offensive because it comes from them, but would be if it came from someone else? In Greece for example, "bastard" is a term of endearment, but only from the right people in the right circumstances, similar to the use of the N word in old school rap music.

To that end, is it not the case that the real definition of a racist comment should NOT be based on the actual comment/word itself but rather on the context and intention of the person saying it? 

I think that's why "politically correct linguistics" are such a minefield to get sorted because when we get down to analysing a person or newspapers "intentions" we almost always enter the very same world of stereotyping and assumption.

On that basis I don't think the problem will ever go away, but at least recognising that some things will offend some people some of the time in some circumstances might eventually ameliorate the issue of insensitive marketing.

Hey Lusty - in my opinion, there was a huge error in judgement here. The intention may not have been racist, but the appearance was. I can't see intention. I have no way of knowing, but will assume you are Caucasian. You may also be a fan of gangster rap, and routinely call your friends the N word. You may not have been able to tell, had it not been for the fact that I have identified myself as being Jamaican, and black, that I am. In an environment worldwide that is increasingly racially charged, wouldn't you think twice about calling me the N word, in light of how you may be viewed? That, my friend, is my point. They may not be racist, but it was spectacularly insensitive to dress someone in an outfit that referred to them as being a monkey, when their ethnicity has led to that particular description being used as a racist slur. The very appearance, despite the child's mother happily collecting the cheque and seeing nothing wrong, is offensive to many potential customers. 

Let me further illustrate what I mean when I speak to an increasingly racially charged environment. A middle school in Ohio recently turned up to play a basketball tournament. On the front of the jerseys was their team name "wet dream team" and on the back, the all-caucasian players had names such as "Coon" and "Knee Grow". It was as if they tried to be as offensive as possible. They didn't apologise when officials approached them, they offered to change or cover up. They were kicked out of the competition and all they had to say was that they understood. 

This hoodie incident serves to further ignite racial tensions, no matter how innocuous it may have appeared to those who would not be offended. Spare a thought for those it offends, and try to understand why it would.

Keegan wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Keegan wrote:Hi guys. As the "Token Black" allow me to give my point of view on this topic. The United States has enjoyed a position of prominence in the field of racism for many years. It was legal to hunt Negroes (not exactly what it said on the license) at one point,  and in some States negro babies were used as alligator bait. They were routinely referred to as monkeys and apes. In fact, that is how the Monkey Wrench got its name, being invented by a Negro. Years of progress led to racism being submerged significantly, but the current administration made it popular again, due in part to the current leader's Dad being involved in the most notorious racist organisation in the US. 

Look up David Duke and his tweets telling the President to remember who put him in office. It is common knowledge that in Spain, Italy and Russia in particular, black players are oftentimes called monkeys/apes and have bananas thrown at them - even by their own supporters. With this in mind, using a young black child to model a shirt that says the wearer is a monkey, is insensitive at the very least, and in poor taste. 

A Caucasian child wearing that shirt would have raised no eyebrows but with racial tensions as they are in the US, it must have been intentional, because big companies tend to have teams that look into potential PR issues.

Finally, the mother of the child in question has come out in support of the company, saying it was never their intention to be racist and that she had no issue with it. The child is hers and has the right to decide what modelling huh A he does, but she does not own the feelings of all black people. I believe the company (that is, whoever was responsible for approving the Ad campaign) is either racist or deliberately toyed with racism to cause controversy and raise their public awareness. Neither is acceptable in a racially charged climate such as this. I won't be discussing the use of the "N word" because it wasnt used in the campaign and I understand the challenges involved in explaining its use among black people.

Correct me if I'm wrong Keegs, but what is considered offensive varies from culture to culture, person to person, who is saying it and also varies over time doesn't it? 

Question I have for you is, are there things that your friends and relatives might call you that isn't offensive because it comes from them, but would be if it came from someone else? In Greece for example, "bastard" is a term of endearment, but only from the right people in the right circumstances, similar to the use of the N word in old school rap music.

To that end, is it not the case that the real definition of a racist comment should NOT be based on the actual comment/word itself but rather on the context and intention of the person saying it? 

I think that's why "politically correct linguistics" are such a minefield to get sorted because when we get down to analysing a person or newspapers "intentions" we almost always enter the very same world of stereotyping and assumption.

On that basis I don't think the problem will ever go away, but at least recognising that some things will offend some people some of the time in some circumstances might eventually ameliorate the issue of insensitive marketing.

Hey Lusty - in my opinion, there was a huge error in judgement here. The intention may not have been racist, but the appearance was. I can't see intention. I have no way of knowing, but will assume you are Caucasian. You may also be a fan of gangster rap, and routinely call your friends the N word. You may not have been able to tell, had it not been for the fact that I have identified myself as being Jamaican, and black, that I am. In an environment worldwide that is increasingly racially charged, wouldn't you think twice about calling me the N word, in light of how you may be viewed? That, my friend, is my point. They may not be racist, but it was spectacularly insensitive to dress someone in an outfit that referred to them as being a monkey, when their ethnicity has led to that particular description being used as a racist slur. The very appearance, despite the child's mother happily collecting the cheque and seeing nothing wrong, is offensive to many potential customers. 

Let me further illustrate what I mean when I speak to an increasingly racially charged environment. A middle school in Ohio recently turned up to play a basketball tournament. On the front of the jerseys was their team name "wet dream team" and on the back, the all-caucasian players had names such as "Coon" and "Knee Grow". It was as if they tried to be as offensive as possible. They didn't apologise when officials approached them, they offered to change or cover up. They were kicked out of the competition and all they had to say was that they understood. 

This hoodie incident serves to further ignite racial tensions, no matter how innocuous it may have appeared to those who would not be offended. Spare a thought for those it offends, and try to understand why it would.

Bwfc1958 wrote:

Keegan wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Keegan wrote:Hi guys. As the "Token Black" allow me to give my point of view on this topic. The United States has enjoyed a position of prominence in the field of racism for many years. It was legal to hunt Negroes (not exactly what it said on the license) at one point,  and in some States negro babies were used as alligator bait. They were routinely referred to as monkeys and apes. In fact, that is how the Monkey Wrench got its name, being invented by a Negro. Years of progress led to racism being submerged significantly, but the current administration made it popular again, due in part to the current leader's Dad being involved in the most notorious racist organisation in the US. 

Look up David Duke and his tweets telling the President to remember who put him in office. It is common knowledge that in Spain, Italy and Russia in particular, black players are oftentimes called monkeys/apes and have bananas thrown at them - even by their own supporters. With this in mind, using a young black child to model a shirt that says the wearer is a monkey, is insensitive at the very least, and in poor taste. 

A Caucasian child wearing that shirt would have raised no eyebrows but with racial tensions as they are in the US, it must have been intentional, because big companies tend to have teams that look into potential PR issues.

Finally, the mother of the child in question has come out in support of the company, saying it was never their intention to be racist and that she had no issue with it. The child is hers and has the right to decide what modelling huh A he does, but she does not own the feelings of all black people. I believe the company (that is, whoever was responsible for approving the Ad campaign) is either racist or deliberately toyed with racism to cause controversy and raise their public awareness. Neither is acceptable in a racially charged climate such as this. I won't be discussing the use of the "N word" because it wasnt used in the campaign and I understand the challenges involved in explaining its use among black people.

Correct me if I'm wrong Keegs, but what is considered offensive varies from culture to culture, person to person, who is saying it and also varies over time doesn't it? 

Question I have for you is, are there things that your friends and relatives might call you that isn't offensive because it comes from them, but would be if it came from someone else? In Greece for example, "bastard" is a term of endearment, but only from the right people in the right circumstances, similar to the use of the N word in old school rap music.

To that end, is it not the case that the real definition of a racist comment should NOT be based on the actual comment/word itself but rather on the context and intention of the person saying it? 

I think that's why "politically correct linguistics" are such a minefield to get sorted because when we get down to analysing a person or newspapers "intentions" we almost always enter the very same world of stereotyping and assumption.

On that basis I don't think the problem will ever go away, but at least recognising that some things will offend some people some of the time in some circumstances might eventually ameliorate the issue of insensitive marketing.

Hey Lusty - in my opinion, there was a huge error in judgement here. The intention may not have been racist, but the appearance was. I can't see intention. I have no way of knowing, but will assume you are Caucasian. You may also be a fan of gangster rap, and routinely call your friends the N word. You may not have been able to tell, had it not been for the fact that I have identified myself as being Jamaican, and black, that I am. In an environment worldwide that is increasingly racially charged, wouldn't you think twice about calling me the N word, in light of how you may be viewed? That, my friend, is my point. They may not be racist, but it was spectacularly insensitive to dress someone in an outfit that referred to them as being a monkey, when their ethnicity has led to that particular description being used as a racist slur. The very appearance, despite the child's mother happily collecting the cheque and seeing nothing wrong, is offensive to many potential customers. 

Let me further illustrate what I mean when I speak to an increasingly racially charged environment. A middle school in Ohio recently turned up to play a basketball tournament. On the front of the jerseys was their team name "wet dream team" and on the back, the all-caucasian players had names such as "Coon" and "Knee Grow". It was as if they tried to be as offensive as possible. They didn't apologise when officials approached them, they offered to change or cover up. They were kicked out of the competition and all they had to say was that they understood. 

This hoodie incident serves to further ignite racial tensions, no matter how innocuous it may have appeared to those who would not be offended. Spare a thought for those it offends, and try to understand why it would.

Good post Keegan, enlightening and makes sense.

Leeds_Trotter wrote:So now it seems protesters have got and trashed a few H&M stores in South Africa. What an absolute joke, people really need to get a grip and stop taking things too far. If you want to have a pointless protest, by all means go ahead, but don't act like animals and destroy a shop.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/hm-stores-in-south-afrtica-trashed-by-protesters-after-racist-ad

Leeds_Trotter wrote:So now it seems protesters have got and trashed a few H&M stores in South Africa. What an absolute joke, people really need to get a grip and stop taking things too far. If you want to have a pointless protest, by all means go ahead, but don't act like animals and destroy a shop.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/hm-stores-in-south-afrtica-trashed-by-protesters-after-racist-ad

T.R.O.Y wrote:Looks like one guy decided to take things too far. Hardly a big deal is it.

T.R.O.Y wrote:I think there are real issues in the world, the rise of the right wing and all of it’s associated politics being the main thing. A guy trashing H&M, although not great, just doesn’t register for me.

Leeds_Trotter wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:I think there are real issues in the world, the rise of the right wing and all of it’s associated politics being the main thing. A guy trashing H&M, although not great, just doesn’t register for me.

Hardly everywhere though is it? Just 1 looney in America.

Leeds_Trotter wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:I think there are real issues in the world, the rise of the right wing and all of it’s associated politics being the main thing. A guy trashing H&M, although not great, just doesn’t register for me.

Hardly everywhere though is it? Just 1 looney in America.

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Leeds_Trotter wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:I think there are real issues in the world, the rise of the right wing and all of it’s associated politics being the main thing. A guy trashing H&M, although not great, just doesn’t register for me.

Hardly everywhere though is it? Just 1 looney in America.

Hmmm 1 very powerful loony, plus the millions who voted for him, plus the loony Brexiteers here.