Racism scandal in fashion industry

[Knight Of Winter]

Topic such as this is usually bound to create controversy, for this is either a case of blatant racism or a political correctness gone way too far. However, I do find it interesting and think it's important that it be discussed, hence this thread.

About two months ago, international fashion brand H&M released new line of clothing. Problems arose with T-shirt saying "Coolest monkey in the jungle", and the reason was that H&M used a black boy to model it. Full article can be found here, controversial picture in question is this one . In the aftermath huge scandal erupted, H&M was accused of racism and issued an apology while boy moved with his family to Swedish safe house for security reasons.

What I find interesting and would like to discuss here is ideological layer of this story: can a "message" be more or less right/wrong/ok/offensive depending on the "messenger" ? For, in my opinion, H&M genuinely didn't do anything wrong here. If there's nothing inherently wrong with T-shirt words Coolest monkey in the jungle (and I don't think there is), then it should be equally acceptable for anyone to wear them, be he/she black boy, white elderly women, red-haired dwarf or blue-eyed Chinese. Stupid derogatory connotations used against black people in the past should remain there - in the past, not hindering what is in all likelihood perfectly innocuous T-shirt which had the misfortune its words could be taken in a wrong way.

[Liffguard]

28 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

 If there's nothing inherently wrong with T-shirt words Coolest monkey in the jungle (and I don't think there is), then it should be equally acceptable for anyone to wear them, be he/she black boy, white elderly women, red-haired dwarf or blue-eyed Chinese. Stupid derogatory connotations used against black people in the past should remain there - in the past,

There's no such thing as "inherently wrong" words. All words are given meaning by the context in which they are used. In this case, the context of these words being used in conjunction with a black child is different from if they had been used in conjunction with a different ethnicity, thus the meaning changes.

[Knight Of Winter]

37 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

There's no such thing as "inherently wrong" words. All words are given meaning by the context in which they are used. In this case, the context of these words being used in conjunction with a black child is different from if they had been used in conjunction with a different ethnicity, thus the meaning changes.

I meant there was nothing obviously offensive about the words like "Australians are dumb" or "Lets kill puppies". But I get your point: people (i.e. society) can make harmless words into something hurtful through ill-intentioned use.

The thing is, society can also just as easily do the reverse: un-make the "ill" meaning though erasing and replacing it. In that light, I'd venture to even suggest that hoodie in question represents a step forward, for using monkey as a symbol for... monkey , and nothing else, no hidden connotations.

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Secondly, no, it's not obvious ad is offensive

I'm fresh outta troll feed, but I will say this. Until the day when the term 'monkey' isn't hurled all over the place as a racist insult, when black footballers are not subjected to monkey-chants and bananas thrown onto the pitch, that advert will be racist and deliberately provocative. Much like this thread.

[drawkcabi]

The ad was offensive. H&M is a Swedish company controversial ad was on a UK website. It is perfectly reasonable to see this is as an unintentional act of cultural insensitivity. H&M removed the item and issued an apology. In a rational world that should have been the end of it.

Those who want to continue to make an issue of it are either trolls or virtue signalers or some horrible combination thereof and need to get over themselves.

 

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Secondly, no, it's not obvious ad is offensive, else there would a  consensus instead of controversy.

Um, there is a consensus. Just because you're not part of it, doesn't mean there isn't a consensus.

[Knight Of Winter]

49 minutes ago, mormont said:

Um, there is a consensus. Just because you're not part of it, doesn't mean there isn't a consensus.

If I were pedantic, I'd say that last sentence is a oxymoron On a more serious note, I'm not referring to myself only, as there are other people who share similar view (and I'm not talking about genuine racists, with whom I've no desire to be associated with)
 

1 hour ago, drawkcabi said:

Those who want to continue to make an issue of it are either trolls or virtue signalers or some horrible combination thereof and need to get over themselves.

Sigh... I understand this a [understatement] serious and sensitive issue [/understatement]. I understand your point of view and will gladly and eagerly have this debate and try to answer every argument with counterargument. What I don't understand is this desire to ad-hominem - ly attack someone who expresses different opinion, or even a different idea on how to achieve same opinion. You and I can both fervently, genuinely and passionately believe in anti-racism and race equality, but hold diametrically opposite view on how to reach it. In any case, I'd ask to debate what I wrote, not what (do you think) I am.

In any case, back to the substance of the discussion. There are two possible narratives here:

a) black people are called monkeys

b ) there is no connotation between them, much like how there's no connotation between brunettes and raspberries

Narrative A is, I think we'll all agree, wrong, appalling, disgusting, regressive, primitive, offensive and in dire need of extermination as soon as possible. It's what we had in the past and it's what is, unfortunately, still often present today. Narrative B is, what I also believe we'll agree, what we hope for will happen in the future.

So while visceral reaction I understand and have indulged more than once in the past, I'm trying to approach this in different manner: how do we as quickly replace A with B? Considering H&M's ad as racist, although certainly well-meaning, paradoxically reinforces A. It acknowledges it even while viscerally negating it; it forces people to even think in terms of it where there's not ill-intent and hence any reason to. Not considering it racist, on the other hand, erases A completely; it implicitly puts it beneath mere notice. Of course monkey will mean monkey (and nothing more), which sane person could even think or imply otherwise? It takes non-racist way of thinking at a face value and implicitly denies racist one to even rear its ugly head. In my mind there's no doubt which approach is better.

On a more general note, language is a fluid concept. Words and phrases change their meaning, connotations and implications over years and generations; and we're in middle of one such change - A to B (and it will last for decades more, no doubt, but in the end it will be done). I simply think we're better off acknowledging it and using it in a way that makes for a better society.

ETA: to sum up all around: just like how bad connotations and meanings can be put into practice with malicious use, so can they be be replaced in a similar fashion. Not seeing racism in ad, in my genuine opinion, is a step towards it.

[butterbumps!]

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

In any case, back to the substance of the discussion. There are two possible narratives here:

a) black people are called monkeys

b ) there is no connotation between them, much like how there's no connotation between brunettes and raspberries

approach this in different manner: how do we as quickly replace A with B?

If you want to liberate the term "monkey" from its meaning as a racial slur maybe take it up with the racist shitstains who use that term as a racial slur?

[Jo498]

Apparently the Swedes only thought of "monkey" as a cute term for a very active young child. If the child model had been white probably nobody would ever have thought of the possible racist connotation.

[mormont]

10 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

If I were pedantic, I'd say that last sentence is a oxymoron

No, actually: that's not what 'consensus' means.

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

Apparently the Swedes only thought of "monkey" as a cute term for a very active young child. If the child model had been white probably nobody would ever have thought of the possible racist connotation.

I'm fairly sure they would. I don't want to speak for Swedes - no, actually, I think I can. 'Monkey' has been used as a racist insult in pretty much every European culture. I'm not buying a defence of 'we didn't think of that'. That's the problem, not the excuse.

[Jo498]

I do not deny that monkey is used as a racist insult (like in "ape sounds" in the football stadium). But this can hardly mean that the term monkey has to be banned if the connection or intention are not obvious. It is not like "darkie" which can only be a racist word.

Do you really believe that there would have been an international reaction to the shirt if the child model had been a blond girl or a red-headed boy and not a black boy? It's possible but I do not think we have become that paranoid yet.

[mormont]

Just now, Jo498 said:

I do not deny that monkey is used as a racist insult (like in "ape sounds" in the football stadium). But this can hardly mean that the term monkey has to be banned if the connection or intention are not obvious. It is not like "darkie" which can only be a racist word.

Do you really believe that there would have been an international reaction to the shirt if the child model had been a blond girl or a red-headed boy and not a black boy? It's possible but I do not think we have become that paranoid yet.

But it wasn't a blonde kid, was it? And as noted, context matters.

I may be misunderstanding here but you have said that Swedes 'only' thought of monkey as a 'cute term'. Now you're admitting that this is wrong, they do also understand it as a racist term. If I am misreading, and by 'the Swedes' you mean 'the people who created this shirt' not 'the Swedes in general', then I would suggest your word choice was poor. If on the other hand you mean 'the people who selected the model and took the photo', then I would suggest that they don't get a pass for not noticing the problem - as noted, that was where they went wrong, not the excuse for why they went wrong.

[Jo498]

I meant the creators of the shirt with "Swedes" and I don't think that these designers thought about the possibility of monkey being a racial slur. I don't know about Sweden but it is certainly the case that countries with very small black populations and no or hardly any history of colonalism until very recently tended to be rather naive or simply insensitive about possible racist slurs. (Lots of things that were normal and usually not intended racist in my childhood around 1980 seem insensitive or ludicrously racist from today's perspective. Examples are the original text of Pippi Longstocking and the names of certain German sweets covered with dark chocolate.)

I agree that when a black boy posed with the shirt someone in the environment should have been sensitive enough to see the possible connection and avoid that. And I am quite surprised that it got through. Still, I tend to the position that there was no racist intention but only insensitivity or ignorance. Briefly, the shirt is o.k., the actual photo was problematic.

[mormont]

About 20% of Swedes are immigrants or from an immigrant background, and many of their most prominent sportsmen are of backgrounds where they have faced 'monkey chants' from knuckle-dragging fans on the terraces. So again, I find the argument re: naivete lacking. Swedes are as familiar with the racist use of the word as anyone else.

[Knight Of Winter]

10 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

If you want to liberate the term "monkey" from its meaning as a racial slur maybe take it up with the racist shitstains who use that term as a racial slur?

Why, yes, by all means we should do so. Correct them, ridicule them, mock them for their stupidity. If there are elements of criminal offense in their racism - prosecute them. That part was never the issue, it's just not the whole picture.

I'd wager to say that this controversy highlights our insecurity in our non-racists beliefs. When confronting with a idea we're sure we find ridiculous and malicious and have no doubt about it - e.g. the idea that climate change is a Chinese hoax - we'll respond with ridicule. When discussing climate, we won't feel the need to preface our every sentence with denying said idea for the fear of being misunderstood. Our opposition to that idea will be a given presumption, not a point of discussion,

When confronted with racism, on the other hand, we'll behave and speak in a lot more insecure manner. We'll feel the need to go out of the way to make sure that whatever we say or do cannot in any way, shape or form ever be construed as racist, even if there was zero malicious intent behind it. This, IMO, is what happened in the H&M story.

Intent is what made words like monkey stick as a racial slur. Lack of intent, for example seeing black kid wearing a hoodie in question without any symbolic undertones, has the potential to un-stick it.
 

1 hour ago, mormont said:

No, actually: that's not what 'consensus' means.

Lol, it's obvious there's not even a consensus in this thread (and again, not speaking about myself only), let alone any other community I've seen discussing this, and let (even more) alone entire society. Different non-racist people will have different ideas about this issue, and that's fine.

1 hour ago, mormont said:

I'm fairly sure they would. I don't want to speak for Swedes - no, actually, I think I can. 'Monkey' has been used as a racist insult in pretty much every European culture. I'm not buying a defence of 'we didn't think of that'. That's the problem, not the excuse.

I agree absolutely that it has, and that is was used as a deliberate offense. To explain my point, I'll use a bit of perspective.

If your friend told you he'd like to get to know your kids, would you beat the crap out of him? Or if you told your wife you visited a nunnery, would you be surprised if she filed for a divorce? Few centuries/millennia ago, you would have every right to, in both cases.

However, sometimes in meantime, people stopped using "get to know" as a synonym to "have sex with". The word "nunnery" ceased to mean "brothel". At one point in time, people were secure they could use verb "know" without any sexual undertones. The intent changed, the word changed, the meaning changed; and this happens in language all the time.

This is what is and should be happening with monkey as racial slur. For I'm sure that 50,100 or 200 years in the future it will done, completely (and this time, it will be a consensus), without anyone even making a mental connection between "black person" and "monkey" in a slur-like way. I simply wish to speed up a process by acknowledging it and using it, not passively watching it happen.

Later on, you spoke how context matters. While that's obviously correct and valid, I think it doesn't cover the whole picture. Context is not just some abstract, God-given, non-changeable perennial given, rather it's defined and shaped by us - the society. If context made monkey into a slur, lack of context can un-make it just as efficiently. H&M's ad can be a fine example of that.

[Spockydog]

Racists gonna racist, it seems.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that neither Knight of Winter or Jo498 are black, nor ever had to suffer the indignity of being called a fucking monkey by some brainless, racist troglodyte.

Also, why is this thread not closed yet?

 

[butterbumps!]

40 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Why, yes, by all means we should do so. Correct them, ridicule them, mock them for their stupidity. If there are elements of criminal offense in their racism - prosecute them. That part was never the issue, it's just not the whole picture.

I'd wager to say that this controversy highlights our insecurity in our non-racists beliefs. When confronting with a idea we're sure we find ridiculous and malicious and have no doubt about it - e.g. the idea that climate change is a Chinese hoax - we'll respond with ridicule. When discussing climate, we won't feel the need to preface our every sentence with denying said idea for the fear of being misunderstood. Our opposition to that idea will be a given presumption, not a point of discussion,

When confronted with racism, on the other hand, we'll behave and speak in a lot more insecure manner. We'll feel the need to go out of the way to make sure that whatever we say or do cannot in any way, shape or form ever be construed as racist, even if there was zero malicious intent behind it. This, IMO, is what happened in the H&M story.

Intent is what made words like monkey stick as a racial slur. Lack of intent, for example seeing black kid wearing a hoodie in question without any symbolic undertones, has the potential to un-stick it.

Yea, I get it.  This and your previous post are going for the old "pointing out racist meaning perpetuates racist meaning" chestnut, and that "if we just persist in using said words without racist intent we will dismantle the racist meaning!"

The immediately obvious fail of this argument is that aren't mind-readers.   How do we actually know what everyone's true intent is?   How is everyone supposed to know that the photographer/ stylist who took that picture isn't a closeted white supremacist who just happened to be hired by H&M?   How do we know it got through the cracks due to negligent idiocy/ naiveté (still not cool) and not some fuckwad's sick idea of joke?   Do you have some magic ability to sort everyone's motives?

I don't understand what your issue is.   You say we should point out racism.  People did in this instance, H&M apologized and pulled the problematic content.  The Company didn't double down or fight this out of some principle of having had good intent.  Are you saying that the photo should have remained in H&M's marketing if, after investigation, no one in the chain had any sort of racist intention as a way of bravely normalizing the non-slur nature of the word?

Quote

Later on, you spoke how context matters. While that's obviously correct and valid, I think it doesn't cover the whole picture. Context is not just some abstract, God-given, non-changeable perennial given, rather it's defined and shaped by us - the society. If context made monkey into a slur, lack of context can un-make it just as efficiently. H&M's ad can be a fine example of that.

Yea, you're right.   Maybe if I just keep calling my bosses "sweet tits" during meetings, my pure-as-the-driven-snow intent will dismantle context constraints and keep HR off my ass.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Lol, it's obvious there's not even a consensus in this thread (and again, not speaking about myself only)

Again, this false idea that 'consensus' means 'no disagreement' seems to be tripping you up. Also, it really is yourself only. If you think someone else has agreed that the ad is not offensive, even if only unintentionally, you have not been reading carefully.

Quote

I agree absolutely that it has, and that is was used as a deliberate offense. To explain my point, I'll use a bit of perspective.

If your friend told you he'd like to get to know your kids, would you beat the crap out of him? Or if you told your wife you visited a nunnery, would you be surprised if she filed for a divorce? Few centuries/millennia ago, you would have every right to, in both cases.

However, sometimes in meantime, people stopped using "get to know" as a synonym to "have sex with". The word "nunnery" ceased to mean "brothel". At one point in time, people were secure they could use verb "know" without any sexual undertones. The intent changed, the word changed, the meaning changed; and this happens in language all the time.

But since it hasn't happened here, and isn't in the process of happening, you're just wasting everyone's time typing this, as it is irrelevant.

Quote

This is what is and should be happening with monkey as racial slur. For I'm sure that 50,100 or 200 years in the future it will done, completely (and this time, it will be a consensus), without anyone even making a mental connection between "black person" and "monkey" in a slur-like way. I simply wish to speed up a process by acknowledging it and using it, not passively watching it happen.

That's not how linguistic shifts work.

[Jo498]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

About 20% of Swedes are immigrants or from an immigrant background, and many of their most prominent sportsmen are of backgrounds where they have faced 'monkey chants' from knuckle-dragging fans on the terraces. So again, I find the argument re: naivete lacking. Swedes are as familiar with the racist use of the word as anyone else.

So do you think that H&M meant to cater to closet white supremacists with that shirt and ad? Certainly not. So what is your explanation instead of naiveté?

The more disturbing thing for me is that such a stupid but fairly irrelevant false step has huge consequences whereas the practical racism of virtually the whole clothing industry, namely the exploitation of the labour of third world women and often children as well is widely known but hardly anyone bothers to boycott H&M and the rest of them because of it. Until the factory burns it is silently accepted that these people are exploited but a wrong word on a shirt is an unforgivable offense.

[Knight Of Winter]

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

Yea, I get it.  This and your previous post are going for the old "pointing out racist meaning perpetuates racist meaning" chestnut, and that "if we just persist in using said words without racist intent we will dismantle the racist meaning!"

Why not? Do you know what was the most common racial slur 300 years ago? Neither do I. Whatever it was, it likely completely changed its meaning in meantime.
 

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

The immediately obvious fail of this argument is that aren't mind-readers.   How do we actually know what everyone's true intent is?   How is everyone supposed to know that the photographer/ stylist who took that picture isn't a closeted white supremacist who just happened to be hired by H&M?   How do we know it got through the cracks due to negligent idiocy/ naiveté (still not cool) and not some fuckwad's sick idea of joke?   Do you have some magic ability to sort everyone's motives?

No, it goes without saying that I don't have any kind of mind-reading power. And neither do people on the opposite side of the debate, who jumped off the chairs to scream racism, who also did it without knowing the motive. I just made an educated guess not to assume racism, when I saw no actual reason to suspect it (supermatist photographers notwithstanding) So all in all, I don't think this argument favours either side.
 

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

You say we should point out racism. 

Absolutely, yes. Here we agree 100%
 

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

People did in this instance

And here we don't. While we're certain to disagree here, I'm sure you'll see, having read my posts, why I don't consider it racist at all.

If you define racism as discrimination (including de-empowerment, humiliation. lack or rights...) based on race, my prefered ideology is complete opposite of that. If a white guy (or gal) has x% chance of being stripped and search by the police, black guy should have the similar percentage. If a white guy gets paid y amount as his salary, black guy doing the same job should get the same. In fact, employer shouldn't even think in terms "I hired a white/black guy" but "I hired a guy who's best at his job". Similarly, if white kid can wear a hoodie without stigma, because it's not offensive, same should apply to the black kid as well.

In short, ideal anti-racism society shouldn't even consider race as a factor. It should be just a physical characteristic of a body, much like height or eye color, which you certainly notice on a person, but dismiss it as unimportant (as it is) and not think in terms of it.
 

2 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

H&M apologized and pulled the problematic content.  The Company didn't double down or fight this out of some principle of having had good intent.

Which says nothing about their stance on it. Could it be possible that they realized the ad was racist and genuinely apologized? Certainly.
But could it also be possible that H&M, as a capitalist company with the aim on making money, deiced apology is the cheapest way to cut their losses and restore their reputation? Equally possible.

2 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

Are you saying that the photo should have remained in H&M's marketing if, after investigation, no one in the chain had any sort of racist intention as a way of bravely normalizing the non-slur nature of the word?

Normalizing non-slur nature was not the intent, just the unintended side-effect, of course. But yes, morally speaking, I believe that in, such a case, they should not have removed the ad.

What I'm talking about is fairly common over the course of years/decades. In my grandparents generation, word "divorcee", for example, meant exactly the same as it does today, just with large amount of slur-like connotations. It was used to signify that person in question (and for the added sexist benefit, it was almost always used on women) is somehow faulty, wrong or not right in the head for having been divorced, and should be shunned and avoided. Nowdays, after cca 50 years, slur-like implication is almost gone and "divorcee" just means a divorced person, nothing more.
 

2 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

Yea, you're right.   Maybe if I just keep calling my bosses "sweet tits" during meetings, my pure-as-the-driven-snow intent will dismantle context constraints and keep HR off my ass.

Lol. I chuckled a bit a lot for this. Good one

On a serious note, context is not just what you and your intent alone make of it, but rather everyone's collective effort. And I also struggle to find a single circumstance where calling someone sweet tits would ever be construed as well-intended.

 

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Again, this false idea that 'consensus' means 'no disagreement' seems to be tripping you up. Also, it really is yourself only. If you think someone else has agreed that the ad is not offensive, even if only unintentionally, you have not been reading carefully.

Look, I didn't come here to argue semantics. Suffice to say I saw heated disagreement and debates in every community I visited, hence I used the phrase "not consensus". Now, can we move on to more important matters?
 

1 hour ago, mormont said:

But since it hasn't happened here, and isn't in the process of happening, you're just wasting everyone's time typing this, as it is irrelevant.

The reason why I provided such historical examples was to show that this exact same scenario already occurred before, more than a few times. Same ideas, same process, just different setting and actors.

If you, however, believe that this particular issue we're discussing is somehow different and will follow different rules, please do explain. I'm genuinely interested.

1 hour ago, mormont said:

That's not how linguistic shifts work.

That's not really that much of a argument, is it?

If you want, you can elaborate on this and we can talk and exchange ideas. Or we can follow the pattern and share few snide dismissive remarks. Personally, I would find former infinitely more interesting and productive.