Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

H&M. That's just racist.


Spaceman Spiff

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

I think many people in this country want a blank check to be crude and offensive without repercussions. 

 

Of course. And, in my opinion, it isn't often difficult to distinguish. But we all seem to draw that line in different places, some of us don't draw it at all anymore.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Llevron said:

See now I have to go read the entire thread, but I don't see people daying intent doesn't matter. It does alot. It doesn't change the outcome. But it they were trying to call the little black boy a monkey versus trying to sell a funny t-shirt then it matters. 

 

Opinion. Not so much. Don't really care how you feel about what you helped create

 

Right. Well here's the thing with the H&M ad...

 

i have a 2 1/2 year old and for the past 30 months i've been dressing him in various clothes. About 50% of which include something along the lines of what that ad was saying. Various animals in habitats and other things someone could find offense in - even things that militant feminists or vocal transgender advocates would lose their minds over. The other 50% are made of generic sporting references (# 1 draft pick, all star, whatever), plain clothes, and other things. 

 

I didn't buy those clothes, they were given to me. The intent has always been cute, most often times dumb cute. So I see that shirt differently than others. I think it's interesting how different people react to such things - what I see as a dumb shirt for a kid in a world of dumb shirts, others see as racism because they instantly associate black kid with monkey. Whatever.

 

I don't know the history of H&M and I couldn't even give you the names of the people responsible for this stuff at that company, so maybe this is one item in a long history of subliminal racism they've been perpetuating. I'm also not really interested in 'defending' them because I just don't see the point, you just get called a range of bad things when you do; I also just don't give a crap about H&M to put in the effort. But as a one-off thing (which is it is in my mind at this very point), it seems to me they're more guilty of not recognizing how sensitive society has become and less an overt or reckless act. 

 

Guess I need to be careful which friends I give my baby clothes to...

 

 

As for your opinion - that's pretty much exactly what i'm talking about. I think it's dangerous when reactions are allowed to overwhelmingly dominate intent. The lines between overt act and honest mistake are completely blurred; not to mention there's a ton of nuance involved in most situations that majority of the public seems either unaware of or just unwilling to consider (not that there is in this case, just in general.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Don't see what's wrong with the GAP add. 

 

No one is saying all ads are equal. I think we all know each other well enough here to not make up arguments where there ain't any. We don't need help there lol 

I didn't mean to imply that. But there were actually  people who found that gap ad offensive. 

 

My point is that when people complain about PC and 'fake' outrage, they are often referring to the gap ad, not the h&m ad. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is bad business to ignore the market, but you also recognize that perceptions about styles change and not everyone in the market will hold the same view at the same time..

 

From Smithsonian magazine:

 

Ladies' Home Journal article in June 1918 said, "The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl." Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti.

 

In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene's told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle's in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I had with the backlash over the Dove "t-shirt" ad was that media accounts I saw at the time showed clips only of the white girl/black girl sequence, cutting the clip short before the third girl was shown.  That made Dove's error seem much more egregious than it was.

 

God knows that with the current boob in the White House and his alt-right, nationalist, and white supremacist fan boys cheering him on, there is the real problem of a racist resurgence in this country.  We don't need to manufacture problems of racial insensitivity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, tshile said:

I don't know the history of H&M and I couldn't even give you the names of the people responsible for this stuff at that company, so maybe this is one item in a long history of subliminal racism they've been perpetuating. I'm also not really interested in 'defending' them because I just don't see the point, you just get called a range of bad things when you do; I also just don't give a crap about H&M to put in the effort. But as a one-off thing (which is it is in my mind at this very point), it seems to me they're more guilty of not recognizing how sensitive society has become

 

Don't know the history of H&M but I know the history of Black people being called monkeys, animals, sub human and treated as such. 

 

I guess my point is it's right for part of society to be sensitive about this. If you can't be sensitive about this, what can you actually be sensitive about? Honestly, I think at this point it's fair criticism. If they didn't know they should now. It's not that hard to NOT refer to black people as monkeys. You don't get passive references to gas chambers a Jewish kid. Same kinda **** (but less serious)

 

23 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

As for your opinion - that's pretty much exactly what i'm talking about. I think it's dangerous when reactions are allowed to overwhelmingly dominate intent. The lines between overt act and honest mistake are completely blurred; not to mention there's a ton of nuance involved in most situations that majority of the public seems either unaware of or just unwilling to consider (not that there is in this case, just in general.)

 

 

I agree it could be dangerous. But the reverse is true. If you allow subliminal messaging to take the humanity away from a group of people like we did in this country for so long you get what we have now. Really, that's exactly what has caused this. If we never had been called monkeys as a way to take away our humanity this **** could be cute. 

 

But it ain't. And we literally cannot trust the people with the power to effect this **** to go unchallenged. We did once. We ended up in chains (obvious or dramatization of this particular situation to help prove my point, I know this is not that case) 

 

In the end I don't blame H&M and still hold them accountable AND want people to make noise so it's clear we ain't gonna let **** like this slide in 2018. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I guess my point is it's right for part of society to be sensitive about this. If you can't be sensitive about this, what can you actually be sensitive about? Honestly, I think at this point it's fair criticism. If they didn't know they should now. It's not that hard to NOT refer to black people as monkeys. You don't get passive references to gas chambers a Jewish kid. Same kinda **** (but less serious)

 

I guess were my opinion differs from you on this, is that no - I don't think putting gas chambers on a shirt is the same as monkeys. If the kid in the ad was white would anyone have a problem with any of this? Would we even know about it?

 

I don't know if we'd know about it if it was a white kid with gas chambers, but I'd still have a problem with it... monkeys are cute and lovable and found on tons of kids shirts.

 

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=toddler+shirt+monkey&safe=active&tbs=vw:g,ss:44&tbm=shop&ei=j_FUWvSKDcqjggfR5oygDA&start=0&sa=N&biw=1682&bih=921

 

I mean there's just page after page after page of these things. Many directly referencing the kid wearing the shirt as a monkey, in some way.

 

Not a whole lot going on for toddler shirt gas chamber searches...

 

https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&biw=1682&bih=921&tbm=shop&ei=l_FUWvKFM8Sxgge4r4ToAw&q=toddler+shirt+gas+chamber&oq=toddler+shirt+gas+chamber&gs_l=psy-ab.3...53837.54962.0.55104.11.11.0.0.0.0.107.784.10j1.11.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.95C8lks0I08

18 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I agree it could be dangerous. But the reverse is true.

Absolutely.

 

It's a tricky line to walk. Some people don't even bother, as I was saying earlier. To them, there is no line. Nuance, shades of gray... none of it exists to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

Of course. And, in my opinion, it isn't often difficult to distinguish. But we all seem to draw that line in different places, some of us don't draw it at all anymore.

 

 

Feel free to propose a solution to this. Mine is that we take a moment to hear what people have to say about their feelings, especially if they are drawing from past experiences. 

 

What is your solution for minority groups who find certain types of imagery distasteful, even though you don’t?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Feel free to propose a solution to this. Mine is that we take a moment to hear what people have to say about their feelings, especially if they are drawing from past experiences. 

 

What is your solution for minority groups who find certain types of imagery distasteful, even though you don’t?

 

Obviously don't put monkey references on shirts

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I guess were my opinion differs from you on this, is that no - I don't think putting gas chambers on a shirt is the same as monkeys. If the kid in the ad was white would anyone have a problem with any of this? Would we even know about it?

 

Put a white kid in a monkey shirt then. Easy peasy. Problem solved. 

 

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

It's a tricky line to walk. Some people don't even bother, as I was saying earlier. To them, there is no line. Nuance, shades of gray... none of it exists to them.

 

Yea. ****s hard bro. Not gonna lie. Im more upset a out this conversation than I am the shirt AND THERE IS NOTHING TO BE UPSET OVER IN THIS CONVERSATION. Its sick but it's inside me. Is what it is. 

 

This is why I like having these discussions with you in particular tho

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tshile said:

Not a whole lot going on for toddler shirt gas chamber searches...

 

 

You missed this one, from 2014.

 

Zara Apologizes for Pajamas Similar to Concentration Camp Uniforms

 

A European retailer has recalled a recent line of children’s pajamas because of their resemblance to concentration camp uniforms used in World War II. The pajamas were striped with a yellow star patch over the wearer’s chest on the left-hand side.

 

zaracomparison.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

you might think i'm  joking but i'm not.

 

i do not know how you can put a monkey reference on a shirt and not run the risk of offending people. you also can't draw cartoons portraying a black person as a monkey.  you cannot use a monkey in any sense where it might, or actually does, suggest a person is a monkey, like a monkey, behaving like a monkey, the situation the person is in is like a situation you might find monkeys in, or anything else. the actual intent of the reference doesn't actually matter. 

 

and i learned a few months away you cannot use the word "female" in the work place, else you'll be recognized as a sexist.

 

there's a lot of things I had no idea people took such grave offense to that you have to be tread carefully around. i'm learning.

8 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

What about less explicit situations with room for broader interpretation?

 

This generic answer of "listen to people who might be offended" is just that, generic Obviously listening to peoples thoughts is important, but that doesn't even begin to solve the problem.

 

So I'll agree with your generic solution, and propose another one:

People shouldn't be racist.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

You missed this one, from 2014.

 

Zara Apologizes for Pajamas Similar to Concentration Camp Uniforms

 

A European retailer has recalled a recent line of children’s pajamas because of their resemblance to concentration camp uniforms used in World War II. The pajamas were striped with a yellow star patch over the wearer’s chest on the left-hand side.

 

zaracomparison.jpg

 

Thats kinda wild to me too. Though this illustrates the point it could be an accident as I would never know this

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Put a white kid in a monkey shirt then. Easy peasy. Problem solved. 

 

 

Yep.  Not really that difficult. 

 

I served as editor of a bimonthly criminal justice-related journal for a while.  it was a routine part of the job when poring over stock photos to double-check issues of racial sensitivity when selecting which ones to use.  The arrest shots shouldn't always be white cop/black defendant.  Try to use photos that show diversity in groups of people in work or community settings. Mix in black and other minority attorneys and judges. And certainly don't show a black kid in a monkey T-shirt.  Easy peasy.

 

(Side story... We had a somewhat limited library of rights-free photos, and a secret among ourselves was that we used the same photo more than once of a woman who looked vaguely distraught.  For us, she was - at various times - a methamphetamine user, a battered spouse, a rape victim, and a shoplifting suspect.  I always wanted to meet the woman depicted in that photo just to apologize to her.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Put a white kid in a monkey shirt then. Easy peasy. Problem solved. 

 

 

I missed this until Dan T quoted it.

 

Sounds good to me. Keep the monkey references to white people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

I don’t think Dove was being intentionally racist with the ad. I don’t think H&M was being intentionally racist either. 

 

These ads are a clear example of the lack of understanding that exists within marketing departments of major brands. 

 

So yes, i don’t find the models comments particularly insightful. 

 

Especially when she clearly acknowledges the issue at play as well, which is that Dove has a history of tone deaf ad campaigns.

 

 

Pointing out that the outrage surrounding this sprang up around an edited version that drained away the context is a valid point though.  There is nothing wrong with a bunch of people transforming into each other to illustrate that women come in all colors.  There is a lot wrong with an ad that implies that black lady + soap = white lady.  The editing of the ad did a lot to lead people towards the second interpretation as opposed to the first. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Do y'all really not see the difference in a white kid wearing a monkey shirt verses a black kid?

Of course I see the difference.  Are you kidding me with this?  Everyone can see the difference.  It's absolutely unacceptable to call a black child (or any black person) a monkey.  That's blatant racism. 

 

Quote

Or are you just yanking my junk?

Bruh.  Phrasing. 

 

Quote

I especially find it hard to believe that you @Destino couldn't get past your own ego to see this one. 

Thanks? 

 

48 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Nm

Too late!  :ols: 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...