Racism

[snowychap]

13 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I don't see it that way but understand the point.

I'm sorry but the rest of your post demonstrates that you do not understand the point.

[tonyh29]

7 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

That said, i doubt a 6 year old black or white kid is aware of anything wrong with that advert.

Nor the parents of the 6 year old black kid who consented for the photo shoot presumably ?

im obviously making a huge leap here , kids parents could be white and have adopted him , might not speak English ( it was Sweden wasn’t it so feasible ) etc

but the marketing team never saw it , the photographer never saw it , the kid never saw it , the kids parents never saw it and so on... in the whole process nobody appears to have said “hang on a moment chaps “

then twitter saw it ....

Edited January 10, 2018 by tonyh29

[Stevo985]

18 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I'm sorry but the rest of your post demonstrates that you do not understand the point.

I understand it fine, thanks. I just don't personally see it that way.

[AVFCDAN]

25 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Nor the parents of the 6 year old black kid who consented for the photo shoot presumably ?

im obviously making a huge leap here , kids parents could be white and have adopted him , might not speak English ( it was Sweden wasn’t it so feasible ) etc

but the marketing team never saw it , the photographer never saw it , the kid never saw it , the kids parents never saw it and so on... in the whole process nobody appears to have said “hang on a moment chaps “

then twitter saw it ....

Exactly.

This whole offended culture is starting to do my nut in.

You have the right to be offended by whatever you choose but you don't have the right to be apologised to.

[AVFCDAN]

36 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

I think the problem here is;

1. Do we acknowledge the past and connotations associated with these words/phrases

Or 2. Be progressive and not let the past dictate what we should or should not do now or in the future. 

If everyone is equal then there is nothing wrong with it.  If you're aware of past prejudices, then obviously there is scope for upset.

That said, i doubt a 6 year old black or white kid is aware of anything wrong with that advert.

It's one of those things where you're probably waiting for 20th century people to die out and the meaning is diluted.

Number 2 every time for me, how else do you move forward?

[tonyh29]

4 minutes ago, AVFCDAN said:

Number 2 every time for me, how else do you move forward?

well , I think you have to learn from the past otherwise you don't move forward as society or whatever ... so to an extent you do have to let the past dictate what we should / should not in the future

but I don't think the hoodie scenario is a case of not learning a lesson tbh  , just a simple mistake

[lapal_fan]

6 minutes ago, AVFCDAN said:

Number 2 every time for me, how else do you move forward?

That would be my stance.  But by the same token, you can't (legitimately) upset people who have lived through those times, and you have to be careful.  As has been said - it's not great.  But I guess to a guy in his 20s doing the marketing, history of "monkey" or "jungle" wouldn't have been going through his/her head. 

As has been said (again), children have been described as monkey's for a long time too.  I call my own boy a cheeky monkey.  I've even said to his little black friend Micah at nursery he's a cheeky monkey when he's come up to me and they've been silly around my legs when picking him up.  Maybe I shouldn't have, but I would never hold those connotations to him, because he's exactly the same as my boy and they were being cheeky monkey's! 

As I said, time will be the only healer. 

[AVFCDAN]

3 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

As has been said (again), children have been described as monkey's for a long time too.  I call my own boy a cheeky monkey.  I've even said to his little black friend Micah at nursery he's a cheeky monkey when he's come up to me and they've been silly around my legs when picking him up.  Maybe I shouldn't have, but I would never hold those connotations to him, because he's exactly the same as my boy and they were being cheeky monkey's! 

Exactly and there is nothing wrong with that, just because some idiot may review that scenario and take offence that is their problem not yours.

[LondonLax]

1 minute ago, AVFCDAN said:

Exactly and there is nothing wrong with that, just because some idiot may review that scenario and take offence that is their problem not yours.

I don't think anyone would take offence at someone calling a child a cheeky monkey, that is a common thing to call a child. The jumper slogan is a bit different, that is a variation on a common thing racists would say to black people and not a common thing to say to a child.

[lapal_fan]

Just now, tonyh29 said:

well , I think you have to learn from the past otherwise you don't move forward as society or whatever ... so to an extent you do have to let the past dictate what we should / should not in the future

but I don't think the hoodie scenario is a case of not learning a lesson tbh  , just a simple mistake

Quite right in some respects.  I mean - do we really need another Hitler (there, I gone and mentioned him)?  

Taking this back to the "black face" stuff from last week.  And with the discussion saying that you can't go as a Basketball player "blacked up" because there are white players. 

What about Mohammed Ali?  Or could you just put a wig on, everlast boxing gloves, shorts, boots and gum shield?

Apologies for finding this so hard   

[tonyh29]

9 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I don't think anyone would take offence at someone calling a child a cheeky monkey, that is a common thing to call a child. The jumper slogan is a bit different, that is a variation on a common thing Liverpool players would say to black people and not a common thing to say to a child.

fixed

[ozvillafan]

Storm in a teacup.

There is nothing particularly racist about the saying "Coolest monkey in the jungle"...

... but printing it on a shirt removes any context (who said it, how it was said, the circumstances/place etc etc), meaning it can be easily perceived as racist.

Item pulled. Apology written. Nothing to see here, really.

[Rugeley Villa]

Not this again. 

[snowychap]

9 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I understand it fine, thanks.

You demonstrably do not. It's obviously pointless to further press that, though.

Edited January 10, 2018 by snowychap
Spelling

[Stevo985]

Just now, snowychap said:

You demonstrably do not. It's obviously pointless to fuirther press that, though.

If you say so 

[HanoiVillan]

11 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Fair enough.

I don't see it that way but understand the point.

Personally if I saw a black child dressed in that hoody I wouldn't think anything of it.
If someone then said "they shouldn't have 'monkey' written on that black child's hoody" I'd be more offended by them making that connection than the hoody itself.

But that's my personal view, as I've already said, I understand the withdrawal of the advert (not the product) and why it's been done.

A & B walk down the street, past an advert depicting a black child with a jumper saying 'coolest monkey in the jungle' on it. 

A: [whistles and walks]

B: 'they shouldn't have 'monkey' written on that black child's hoody'

There is no logical way A should be offended by this exchange. B's thought process is clearly something like 'I know that in the past, racists used to call black people 'monkeys' and that wasn't alright, so they shouldn't have chosen a black model for that product, as it might upset black people'. That can't logically be glossed as racist, or offensive. B just knows some sociological history. 

If B actually thought that black people were like monkeys, why would he say what he said?

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

A & B walk down the street, past an advert depicting a black child with a jumper saying 'coolest monkey in the jungle' on it. 

A: [whistles and walks]

B: 'they shouldn't have 'monkey' written on that black child's hoody'

There is no logical way A should be offended by this exchange. B's thought process is clearly something like 'I know that in the past, racists used to call black people 'monkeys' and that wasn't alright, so they shouldn't have chosen a black model for that product, as it might upset black people'. That can't logically be glossed as racist, or offensive. B just knows some sociological history. 

If B actually thought that black people were like monkeys, why would he say what he said?

I'll gloss over the patronising implication that I don't understand the connotations of the word or any sociological history, and say again that yes, I understand the thought process and why the word "monkey" is a tricky one given it's implications and history of use.

I just personally thought that the context around that hoodie, of it obviously being in the context of children being often referred to as little monkeys, black or not, overrode any racist implications. And stretching to point them out was in itself making a connection that flirted with being racist.

Maybe I worded it poorly. 

 

I'll refer back to my original point in this thread, that a load of white blokes arguing about what black people find offensive is utterly futile. If the advert is offensive to some people then I completely agree with it being withdrawn.

[snowychap]

26 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I'll gloss over the patronising implication that I don't understand the connotations of the word or any sociological history, and say again that yes, I understand the thought process and why the word "monkey" is a tricky one given it's implications and history of use.

I just personally thought that the context around that hoodie, of it obviously being in the context of children being often referred to as little monkeys, black or not, overrode any racist implications. And stretching to point them out was in itself making a connection that flirted with being racist.

Maybe I worded it poorly. 

 

I'll refer back to my original point in this thread, that a load of white blokes arguing about what black people find offensive is utterly futile. If the advert is offensive to some people then I completely agree with it being withdrawn.

Jeez.

[Brumerican]

Jungles are usually hot and humid, so wearing a hoodie would only exacerbate the problem. 

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

30 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I'll gloss over the patronising implication that I don't understand the connotations of the word or any sociological history, and say again that yes, I understand the thought process and why the word "monkey" is a tricky one given it's implications and history of use.

I just personally thought that the context around that hoodie, of it obviously being in the context of children being often referred to as little monkeys, black or not, overrode any racist implications. And stretching to point them out was in itself making a connection that flirted with being racist.

Maybe I worded it poorly. 

 

I'll refer back to my original point in this thread, that a load of white blokes arguing about what black people find offensive is utterly futile. If the advert is offensive to some people then I completely agree with it being withdrawn.

That isn't 'wording it poorly', that's 'being wrong'. It's not 'flirting with being racist' to acknowledge that some black people might have a problem with this advert due to its language. The point is completely illogical, and there's no way you can change the wording but leave the meaning the same and somehow become right about this.