This topic contains 14 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  carly 9 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #130

    tom
    Participant

    I see a report on sky news today of ‘activists’ ransacking 6 H&M stores in South Africa because of an advert in which a young black boy is wearing a jumper with the slogan ‘coolest monkey in the jungle’.

    Now of course you could say its being racist, or what im more inclined to think it that its totally innocuous and said monkey it probably referring to the child being a cheeky monkey as is quite common language. Either that or its just a slogan with no more meaning than if it said coolest leaf cutter ant in the jungle.

    It gets on my wick how people decide to be offended so easily these days and, it would seem intentionally look for reasons to be offended so they can justify themselves going smashing up a store. I have never been offended in my life, i think people are just soft. Suck it up buttercup.

    Thoughts? Am i just unable to empathize given i am not from that ethnic background? I mean if there were a T-shirt saying craziest cracker at christmas and a young white child was wearing it I wouldnt immediately jump to the worst conclusion that it was blatant racism. For a multinational brand to be openly racist in this day and age would be pure lunacy – so again i cant possibly believe there is any meaning behind it at all just the meaning that others decide to heap on it and stoke the fires of social inequality.

  • #131

    andypandy
    Participant

    Think the problem was that every other item in the range was being modelled by a young white child. Then suddenly this one was being modelled by a young black child.

    Probably totally innocent, but obviously it looks terrible for them.

  • #132

    sam
    Participant

    This started a few days ago. The mother of the child was on social media then saying it is nothing, just a storm over nothing etc and she isn’t the least bit offended as cheeky monkey is just a phrase.

  • #133

    jimmy
    Participant

    Think the problem was that every other item in the range was being modelled by a young white child. Then suddenly this one was being modelled by a young black child.> Probably totally innocent, but obviously it looks terrible for them.

    @andypandy Not true. They are Swedish and in the press here the mother was saying 3 days ago it was just one of dozens of items he wore on that shoot. She’s also been on Twitter etc.. obviously people only hear what they want and were just looking to smash things up for no reason.

    H&M-pojkens mamma talar ut: ”Jag ser inte problemet, släpp det!”

  • #134

    cammy
    Participant

    The world’s going mad. What next; a bunch of gay fellas smashing up a girls clothes shop because of t shirts with words about fairies and queens.

  • #135

    Phil
    Participant

    Heard a talking head the other day saying that for white people to refer to the Calais Jungle as the ‘Jungle’ is racist. It’s a minefield out there!

  • #140

    DonaldTrump
    Participant

    I have never been offended in my life, i think people are just soft. Suck it up buttercup.

    @tom It speaks volumes for your character that you can still say this despite having suffered a great deal of prejudice living for many years on the shitty side of the apartheid regime. Well done you.

  • #141

    tom
    Participant

    @donaldtrump This thing has gone world wide. The fact I referenced the incident in South Africa was just because it was in the news. In general it seems people are quite easily offended. IF – this was something completely racist (for instance the things said by the UKIP leaders wife) then of course being offended about something like that is completely understandable. Genuine racism, sexism, homophobia etc. – of course they will cause offence and are meant to do so by the people spewing it, in which case the people being offended have genuine reason to be.

    On the other hand my argument is that people are far to quick to add meaning to something and take offence. Case in point – the subject of this thread. Are you seriously telling me that the jumper is racist? Bringing apartheid into this argument – you sir are part of the problem in that you are adding meaning to something that isnt there. That jumper has nothing to do with racism or social inequality.

    Please expand on your argument for the justification to smash up 6 stores because of the jumper and relate it to apartheid.

  • #142

    DonaldTrump
    Participant

    @tom I have no point to make, beyond the point that “I have never been offended so nobody else ever should be” is a dick move. You’re a devastatingly handsome young white man, so maybe you should just ‘check your privilege’ as they say.

  • #143

    tom
    Participant

    @donaldtrump I think you’ll find you have misquoted me. I didnt say that, and i also said if things are genuinely offensive then people are right to be offended. Im saying people are taking offence at things they are creating a meaning for to be offended at. You have no argument.

  • #144

    DonaldTrump
    Participant

    @tom

    I think you’ll find you have misquoted me.

    “I have never been offended in my life, i think people are just soft. Suck it up buttercup.”

    You have no argument.

    Indeed. Can’t really be arsed to construct one tbh.

    But you did ask for thoughts – well I think your OP is very poorly thought through and that playing the card you are playing there is a dick move.

  • #145

    tom
    Participant

    @donaldtrump Ok, I cant be bothered arguing with you. I dont have many feelings anyway so thats why its quite hard to offend me and likely why im not empathising.

    But all that aside and to the main point of it….

    Do you think the jumper is racist or not and does it give people the justification for going smashing stuff up? If you do think it’s racist please let me know why other than something along the lines of – it could be misconstrued, because thats my point. It seems lots of things are being misconstrued to be then viewed as offensive.

    Theres probably some poor employee of H&M who right now is under the cosh because of this when in actual fact they probably meant the whole thing with good intention. The reason they probably had no malicious intent is because they themselves are not a racist so didn’t see why on earth that would be racist. Almost a child like (and good) way to view the world. Black person, white person, asian person…they dont see that they see…person. Which is they way it should be.

    Your post isnt useful and isnt showing you as intelligent enough to put your point across. You might as well be sticking your fingers in your ears going la la la im not listening.

  • #146

    gary
    Participant

    Genuine question : do people in south Africa actually use the term “cheeky monkey”? Do they ever playfully refer to children as monkeys? Do they actually use monkey as a racist insult?

    Seems to me that the answers are crucial to judging possible racism. Anyone familiar with the culture?

    On a different note, I have noticed that the Nando’s uniform shirts frequently have slogans that could cross a line. If I were black, I’m not sure how happy I would be wearing a shirt that says “Grillers in the Mist”.

  • #147

    sueee
    Participant

    The person who selected this model with this particular jumper was either incredibly racist or so far from racist that the connection of the slogan with race did not occur to them.

    If indeed it was the latter as I think we all suspect it was… then why does that not in turn make those who made the racial connection themselves… racist?

    Personally if I were in charge of the shoot I would not have let that photo out. But of course in order to do this I’m making a connection between skin colour and a racial slur. Does that make me racially aware, or racist? Is there actually a difference? Clearly this line of thought forces a range of differing reactions to a set input based on race of the subject… which is by definition ‘racism’.

  • #148

    carly
    Participant

    If they’d advertised it on a white kid (which they did do incidentally but the press didn’t report that) nobody would have complained and black kids’ parents could have chosen whether to buy it or not. They were trying to not discriminate about using a white model or black model and suddenly they are accused of racism when in fact they are the polar opposite. Can you imagine the uproar if they’d turned the kid down for advertising because he was black and the clothing had the word monkey on it?

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.