Racism scandal in fashion industry

[butterbumps!]

7 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Secondly, one does not need to be a part of any group to be oppressed. I don't think I have to explain this.

Why are you pointing this out?   No where in my posts did I claim this.  I pointed out that being a minority does not in and of itself mean that one is the subject of racism or bigotry, which I felt was necessary because you appeared to equate the two.  You said "It may surprise you, but according to every possible segregation (economical, political, educational, human-rights, religious etc.) I'm in minority in my country; so I'm well aware of possible repercussions of my ideas" in the post above I am linking.  I interpreted this as you saying that you understand what it's like to suffer racism because you're a minority in your country, and that your ideas could have "repercussions" because of that.

I simply pointed out that the oppression of one by a dominant group is embedded in the concept of racism, because it looked like you were equating being a minority with being target of racism.   It's possible that you meant your ideas were in a minority in your country.  At any rate, I've found your intention with a lot of this hard to follow.

Quote

Thirdly, you are correct in assuming that I'm not a part of any group that has been historically oppressed, but again I don't see why it should matter. I'm not a big fan of particularism, for example viewing racism as a issue which needs to be solved by "oppresed" group with the help of enlightened individuals from the "oppressing" one. Anti-racism is a fight for equal-soceity (equal rights, equal opportunity...), and as such, it's everyone job to contribute to it. (hence, when racism does happen, anti-racist organizations should not be the ones to react. everyone should react: syndicates, feminists, stamp collectors, truck drivers, lawyers, hikers... If there's one thing I liek about h&M incident, it's the massiveness of reaction it generated)  And each can offer a different perspective in order to create it. Perspective of a first-hand victim of a racial oppression is not the one I can bring, true.

It very clearly does matter.   Why don't you go back to that example about me calling you "Chucklefuck."  Recall how you agreed I'd be a dick and that it would be wrong to not respect your wishes to stop, and how it would be even more egregiously dickish to tell you to get over it b/c I don't find it offensive and neither should you? You're basically trying to argue that this is how it should operate on a societal level, which is not only dickish, it's also likely really to accomplish the opposite of what you hope, because you'd be opening the door for every Richard Spencer-David Duke- Trumpian fucknut to get even cuter about their racist slurs in the open, while simultaneously succeeding in making it harder for those working against racism from speaking against it.    

But if you wanted to, you, as the targeted party, could try to reclaim "Chucklefuck" as a way of removing the insult's power.   When that happens, though, those reclaimed words tend not to be kosher for members outside of the targeted group.  So the words would still be off limits to various members of society. 

Or, if you really want to help stamp out racism, why not endeavor to get people to stop using those racial slurs?

Quote

Here, I didn't talk about H&M case at all, but about public discourse in general. I got the feeling that you at least partially agree with me on this issue; since you spoke how you're not worried at all about conservatives, bigots etc. being offended about your values and words.

But you wrote the OP, yes?  The OP that is about the H&M case?  I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make-- in general, and in this part I am quoting in particular-- so I don't know if we agree.   

[The Anti-Targ]

On 3/4/2018 at 9:13 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

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.

It's fine for an individual of any ethnicity to choose to buy and wear a hoodie that says "Coolest monkey in the jungle". What's not fine, and what is ridiculously lacking in awareness is for an advertising company and a big corporation to slap that onto a black kid for advertising purposes.

I would have liked to see the unders and overs of the ethnicity of the people who bought that hoodie for their kids. It would surprise me quite a bit if many or any black people would have bought such a hoodie for their kids.