Romelu Lukaku hits back at H&M 'racist' hoodie advert

[arista]

https://e3.365dm.com/18/01/750x563/skynews-h-and-m-racist-childrens-clothing_4201301.jpg?bypass-service-worker&20180109065946

This was the one they removed from sale.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-weeknd-ends-ties-with-hm-over-racist-advert-featuring-black-child-11200833


The Man United Romelu Lukaku
did a photo shop version
shown on a TV News

https://e3.365dm.com/18/01/1096x616/skynews-romelu-lukaku-hm-hoodie_4201534.jpg?bypass-service-worker&20180109123937



Alot of Free Publicity?

[Shaun]

Most likely just a haphazard example of them trying to be both:
- Inclusive with their models
and - getting every single item of clothing modeled by whoever is in the studio that day

Nothing to see here, tbh

[Vicky.]

Seriously misjudged this mind. Have been talking about it elsewhere. This will have been passed through a large amount of people, and not one of them realized that many many people would find it offensive?!

[Oliver_W]

Seriously misjudged this mind. Have been talking about it elsewhere. This will have been passed through a large amount of people, and not one of them realized that many many people would find it offensive?!

It's probably a combination of people just not seeing it because they don't think racist thoughts (i wouldn't really have made the connection), and everyone looking at it from a "picture quality" perspective, only seeing that they chose the best shot, that whatever airbrushing they wanted to do was done right, etc.

[Tom4784]

It boggles my mind that this could have been okayed without anyone seeing the racial implications of it all.

[Vicky.]

It's probably a combination of people just not seeing it because they don't think racist thoughts (i wouldn't really have made the connection), and everyone looking at it from a "picture quality" perspective, only seeing that they chose the best shot, that whatever airbrushing they wanted to do was done right, etc.

But surely someone who looked over this (many people will have been involved) would know the racist connections to monkey and black people. Its not exactly little known.

[Oliver_W]

But surely someone who looked over this (many people will have been involved) would know the racist connections to monkey and black people. Its not exactly little known.

Don't get me wrong, I agree! I was just trying to think of reasons someone might have missed it, is all :)

[Shaun]

Cheekiest would've made sense at least, who the hell says 'cool monkey'

[arista]

Cheekiest would've made sense at least, who the hell says 'cool monkey'


Yes No One.
Its got H&M
prime time news
free publicity


Sure its a Cynical view



Life In The City

[montblanc]

very racially insensitive i don't understand how that was able to go through

[Kizzy]

Cheekiest would've made sense at least, who the hell says 'cool monkey'

Agree, with this.

[Cherie]

someone's getting sacked

[Vicky.]

Yeah cool monkey is very odd.

The argument elsewhere about this has brought up that parents of black kids would be racist for buying the hoodie :umm2: Of course its not racist if the kids chooses the hoodie himself, but it is extremely racially insensitive to have this as advertising. Still cannot get over how many people must have been so ignorant (hopefully, ignorant is the best possible outcome here) of how monkey has been used in the past against black people.

The 'they did not notice as they are not racist' excuse really does not work. Yes, they may not associate black people with monkeys (****ing hope not anyway) but you would have to be living under a rock to not stop and think 'hmm, maybe this is not right' :S

[DemolitionRed]

There's nothing wrong with the t-shirt. Modeling it on a black child is the problem.

[Livia]

I call my nieces "monkeys" all the time. Would I say it to a black child? Probably not.

How does this sort of mistake make it this far without anyone spotting it?

[bots]

Cheeky Monkey would have been the obvious term, as its a common term of endearment, but not cool .... thats just weird

[Crimson Dynamo]

Just make sure that all of your advertising material and models show 8% black people and STOP trying to get likes by thinking this is what people want

:facepalm:

[Northern Monkey]

It’s the worst most incompetent marketing decision you could think of.Even if i was the photographer i’d probably say something like ‘er are you sure this is a good idea?’

[Northern Monkey]

Deliberate for publicity maybe?

No one could be that dumb surely?

[Denver]

The only thing they are guilty of is using the wrong model for the campaign

[Amy Jade]

This reminds me of an old lady I work with who called a little girl taking a handful of those voting token things and she smiled and called her a cheeky little monkey and the three of us who heard were like 'oh no' but nobody said anything and it was meant with no harm so i dont think its offensive really just a bit thoughtless

[kystal555]

It is a bit wrong not being thought. Out properly it should have being a white kid

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

[Mystic Mock]

The term cool monkey is very odd.

I'm with Arista and think that this might've been a publicity stunt, it is ashame though that the word monkey is so badly associated with racism towards black people that our first reaction to this is "oh no" rather than just seeing it as another way of trying to manipulate kids into wanting the companies next product.

[Cherie]

Where were the child's parents when he was given this to model

[Brillopad]

This reminds me of an old lady I work with who called a little girl taking a handful of those voting token things and she smiled and called her a cheeky little monkey and the three of us who heard were like 'oh no' but nobody said anything and it was meant with no harm so i dont think its offensive really just a bit thoughtless

To me this shows how easy it is for people who want to be offended, in order to make a political point, to be offended by taking an everyday non-race related comment such as ‘cheeky little monkey’ and blowing it out of all proportion. It is an agenda. It is those that do this that are obsessed with skin colour and are effectively racist.

[Tom4784]

Where were the child's parents when he was given this to model

His mother commented on the issue saying that she didn't see it as racist.

To me this shows how easy it is for people who want to be offended, in order to make a political point, to be offended by taking an everyday non-race related comment such as ‘cheeky little monkey’ and blowing it out of all proportion. It is an agenda. It is those that do this that are obsessed with skin colour and are effectively racist.

racist
ˈreɪsɪst/Submit
noun
1.
a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
"I had a fear of being called a racist"
synonyms: racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist; More
adjective
1.
showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.
"we are investigating complaints about racist abuse at a newsagents"

So not really, at all. Try again.

[Cherie]

His mother commented on the issue saying that she didn't see it as racist.


Interesting p, but then her son was being handed a wedge of cash

[Brillopad]

His mother commented on the issue saying that she didn't see it as racist.





So not really, at all. Try again.

So if childrens’ clothing has a slogan saying ‘cheeky little monkey’ is that racist in your opinion. There is clearly no racist INTENT. If a black parent is that sensitive then they won’t put it on their child.

And what about clothing stating white is beautiful - is that not allowed. It seems pretty racist to me to only be allowed to state that one skin colour is beautiful.

[bots]

So if childrens’ clothing has a slogan saying ‘cheeky little monkey’ is that racist in your opinion. There is clearly no racist INTENT. If a black parent is that sensitive then they won’t put it on their child.

And what about clothing stating white is beautiful - is that not allowed. It seems pretty racist to me to only be allowed to state that one skin colour is beautiful.

but it didnt say cheeky monkey, it said something with a completely different meaning.

[Tom4784]

Interesting p, but then her son was being handed a wedge of cash

Yeah, people have used her statement as a reason to say it isn't racist but I don't think her thoughts really do anything to dispel that, at best, this is a case of incredible stupidity on the part of the marketing execs that okayed this.

So if childrens’ clothing has a slogan saying ‘cheeky little monkey’ is that racist in your opinion. There is clearly no racist INTENT. If a black parent is that sensitive then they won’t put it on their child.

And what about clothing stating white is beautiful - is that not allowed. It seems pretty racist to me to only be allowed to state that one skin colour is beautiful.

Who said that the clothes themselves were racist? No one that's who. Pay attention.

Dressing a black child in clothes that say 'coolest monkey in the jungle' is problematic as hell and there are racial implications there whether intentional or not (I don't think it's intentional, I just think whoever okayed this is a ****ing moron). Trying to make it about the clothing is just you trying to downplay something that makes you uncomfortable because accusations of racism are more offensive to you than actual racism itself.

If you actually read the topic and the story properly you would know that the controversy has come, not from the clothes, but the choice of model wearing them.

[Brillopad]

Yeah, people have used her statement as a reason to say it isn't racist but I don't think her thoughts really do anything to dispel that, at best, this is a case of incredible stupidity on the part of the marketing execs that okayed this.



Who said that the clothes themselves were racist? No one that's who. Pay attention.

Dressing a black child in clothes that say 'coolest monkey in the jungle' is problematic as hell and there are racial implications there whether intentional or not (I don't think it's intentional, I just think whoever okayed this is a ****ing moron). Trying to make it about the clothing is just you trying to downplay something that makes you uncomfortable because accusations of racism are more offensive to you than actual racism itself.

If you actually read the topic and the story properly you would know that the controversy has come, not from the clothes, but the choice of model wearing them.

So we need segregated clothing now - making such a big thing about the choice of model amounts to just that. What a big step forward that is.

And yes I disrespect those throwing around the word racist at every turn BECAUSE it is used to SHUT DOWN opinions. It is about the INTENT! Just more PC hysteria!

[Tom4784]

So we need segregated clothing now - making such a big thing about the choice of model amounts to just that. What a big step forward that is.

And yes I disrespect those throwing around the word racist at every turn BECAUSE it is used to SHUT DOWN opinions. It is about the INTENT!

For the love of god, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE CLOTHING, what is so difficult for you to understand about that? Who is even talking about segregated clothing? You keep trying to push this whole 'people who think this is racist are actually racist themselves' angle but I've already reduced that argument of yours to dust through the godamn definition of racism.

The choice to model this particular hoodie on a black child is the problem. I don't know why you are struggling so much to understand that.

As for the bolded point, you've accused everyone who has taken issue with this image as being inherently racist, I'd ask you if you truly don't see the hypocrisy in that but I've known you long enough to know that you don't.

If someone accuses you of racism, you tackle that accusation head on and show them why that accusation isn't true. You've accused me of plenty in the past and I don't go 'wah wah, you're shutting down my opinion wah' I take your accusation and show you how silly it is and then I rip it to shreds.

If you are unwilling to defend yourself against apparently untrue accusations than that's your problem, you can't tell people they can't call out racism just because it makes you uncomfortable.

[Brillopad]

For the love of god, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE CLOTHING, what is so difficult for you to understand about that? Who is even talking about segregated clothing? You keep trying to push this whole 'people who think this is racist are actually racist themselves' angle but I've already reduced that argument of yours to dust through the godamn definition of racism.

The choice to model this particular hoodie on a black child and is the problem. I don't know why you are struggling so much to understand that.

As for the bolded point, you've accused everyone who has taken issue with this image as being inherently racist, I'd ask you if you truly don't see the hypocrisy in that but I've known you long enough to know that you don't.

If someone accuses you of racism, you tackle that accusation head on and show them why that accusation isn't true. You've accused me of plenty in the past and I don't go 'wah wah, you're shutting down my opinion wah' I take your accusation and show you how silly it is and then I rip it to shreds.

If you are unwilling to defend yourself against apparently untrue accusations than that's your problem, you can't tell people they can't call out racism just because it makes you uncomfortable.

It is about clothing if you are implying a black child can’t wear a hoodie with the slogan cheeky little monkey for instance. We all know about the negative connotations of the word monkey used in the past but if people are going to apply the same connotation in their minds to a harmless fun slogan on a child’s hoodie that really is their problem - not the child’s or anyone else.

If people want to see hate in a word whatever the context and intent there is no moving forward in my opinion.

[GoldHeart]

I remember seeing this on msn news page Popping up and I was perplexed by it and couldn't believe they actually did this as these days people try their hardest NOT to offend .

Especially a clothing brand like H&M ,what were they thinking :conf: :facepalm: . The whole thing is just weird . How was it given the green light ? .

Yes it's just a sweater but the logo and advert makes you think why didn't they choose another kid to wear it . As things can be taken The wrong way . Just looks really bizarre how it's been done .

[Vicky.]

It is about clothing if you are implying a black child can’t wear a hoodie with the slogan cheeky little monkey for instance. We all know about the negative connotations of the word monkey used in the past but if people are going to apply the same connotation in their minds to a harmless fun slogan on a child’s hoodie that really is their problem - not the child’s or anyone else.

If people want to see hate in a word whatever the context and intent there is no moving forward in my opinion.

A black child can wear any top they want. Totally up to them if they chose something like this,

The problem is with modelling such a top on a black child. Its very offensive to a lot of people, and I am astounded that it managed to pass a bunch of people by..its not like there is only one person making decisions like this in such a huge company, and some people are paid specifically to make sure stuff like this does not happen

I read about the mother not finding it racist. thats fine as its her opinion on it and I have heard black friends saying they did not find it offensive too. But a lot DO find it offensive. And I don't blame them as I know the history of how 'monkey' has been used against black people. FFS we still have idiots throwing bananas at footballers and doing monkey chants and stuff. Its not exactly something thats way in the past so people can use the excuse that they don't know about it...

[Ammi]

...this reminds me a bit of what Spike Lee’s said when he talked of the lack of diversity in Hollywood...that there needed to be more black people in that room where these decisions are made with movies, that was the starting point to have a more diverse ‘body’ of decision makers...it would be interesting to know if the decision makers with this had any diversity on their panel/board etc....because many people sat down and approved this...that should never have happened because it’s already become offensive in the manufacturing and production etc ...so an apology starts to become a bit meaningless...the child’s parent may have said they were ok with it but has her child ever experienced anything negative being said to them personLly in their young life...and if they had, would she still be ok with it and not given it more thought...because some young children have experienced cruel things having been said to them and I can’t imagine a parent of theirs thinking the garment was fine and ‘cool’...

...there seems to have been a few similar advertising cases similar to this recently..the Dove one was another one and think maybe Nivea also..?...this is 2018, we all know what’s offensive and what isn’t offensive to all sections of society ...and certainly the people/..board in ‘that room’ know because they’re being paid to know...these things should just not happen..not at all...

[Ammi]

A black child can wear any top they want. Totally up to them if they chose something like this,

The problem is with modelling such a top on a black child. Its very offensive to a lot of people, and I am astounded that it managed to pass a bunch of people by..its not like there is only one person making decisions like this in such a huge company, and some people are paid specifically to make sure stuff like this does not happen

I read about the mother not finding it racist. thats fine as its her opinion on it and I have heard black friends saying they did not find it offensive too. But a lot DO find it offensive. And I don't blame them as I know the history of how 'monkey' has been used against black people. FFS we still have idiots throwing bananas at footballers and doing monkey chants and stuff. Its not exactly something thats way in the past so people can use the excuse that they don't know about it...

..or similar to this, we must have posted at the same time.../...you’re just quicker on the keyboard...

[Brillopad]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5265633/H-M-store-trashed-coolest-monkey-jungle-row.html

A bunch of thugs who think they have an excuse to act like a bunch of thugs. They should be charged.

[Vicky.]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5265633/H-M-store-trashed-coolest-monkey-jungle-row.html

A bunch of thugs who think they have an excuse to act like a bunch of thugs. They should be charged.

Absolutely disgusting behaviour. Talk about going over the ****ing top...

[Kazanne]

Maybe the people that passed this are not the racist ones,surely it's the people that are saying it is racist are the problem,people make things worse by throwing wobblys about something that I don't see as racist, I just saw a cute kid in a hoodie,now I see something different because of the fall out, kids are called little monkeys all the time, I had a top with a bunny on once doesn't mean I was a playboy bunny.

[Kazanne]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5265633/H-M-store-trashed-coolest-monkey-jungle-row.html

A bunch of thugs who think they have an excuse to act like a bunch of thugs. They should be charged.

Talk about going over the top,Jesus and they think that will make things better,effing idiots.

[Brillopad]

Maybe the people that passed this are not the racist ones,surely it's the people that are saying it is racist are the problem,people make things worse by throwing wobblys about something that I don't see as racist, I just saw a cute kid in a hoodie,now I see something different because of the fall out, kids are called little monkeys all the time, I had a top with a bunny on once doesn't mean I was a playboy bunny.

It’s madness Kaz. I can’t help but think that seeing ‘colour’ in everything, even something as harmless as a child’s hoodie, is a combination of either forced offence as part of a political agenda or an unconscious preoccupation with skin colour.

Maybe, just maybe the people producing the hoodie gave it little thought because they don’t focus on skin colour and just see children and children’s clothes. It does make you wonder where racism really begins and ends.

[Kazanne]

It’s madness Kaz. I can’t help but think that seeing ‘colour’ in everything, even something as harmless as a child’s hoodie, is a combination of either forced offence as part of a political agenda or an unconscious preoccupation with skin colour.

Maybe, just maybe the people producing the hoodie gave it little thought because they don’t focus on skin colour and just see children and children’s clothes. It does make you wonder where racism really begins and ends.

:wavey: Too true,people seem to look for anything to have a go at.

[smudgie]

Absolutely disgusting behaviour. Talk about going over the ****ing top...

Ah, I got the video on FB early on, warning to keep away from certain malls and shopping centres due to this carry on.


Obviously if was a shared post from one of my SA friends.

[Tom4784]

It is about clothing if you are implying a black child can’t wear a hoodie with the slogan cheeky little monkey for instance. We all know about the negative connotations of the word monkey used in the past but if people are going to apply the same connotation in their minds to a harmless fun slogan on a child’s hoodie that really is their problem - not the child’s or anyone else.

If people want to see hate in a word whatever the context and intent there is no moving forward in my opinion.

Again, it isn't. You are constantly misunderstanding the point. The child can wear what he wants, the problem is that H&M thought that it would be a good idea to use a picture of a black child modelling that hoodie as a way of advertising it online. Honestly, I'm tired of explaining this, it should be obvious what the problem is.

This whole 'blame the people who take offense' approach is just an overly PC reaction that you always have whenever anyone, regardless of the situation, is accused of racism. You're the most PC person on this website, it's just you get on a soapbox when it comes to racism accusations and not actual racism itself.

[Tom4784]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5265633/H-M-store-trashed-coolest-monkey-jungle-row.html

A bunch of thugs who think they have an excuse to act like a bunch of thugs. They should be charged.

They don't look much like protesters to me, more like chavs looking for an excuse to be chavs.

[Marsh.]

To me this shows how easy it is for people who want to be offended, in order to make a political point, to be offended by taking an everyday non-race related comment such as ‘cheeky little monkey’ and blowing it out of all proportion. It is an agenda. It is those that do this that are obsessed with skin colour and are effectively racist.

There was no "cheeky little monkey" phrase used.

[Brillopad]

There was no "cheeky little monkey" phrase used.

It comes from something said by another poster.

[Brillopad]

Again, it isn't. You are constantly misunderstanding the point. The child can wear what he wants, the problem is that H&M thought that it would be a good idea to use a picture of a black child modelling that hoodie as a way of advertising it online. Honestly, I'm tired of explaining this, it should be obvious what the problem is.

This whole 'blame the people who take offense' approach is just an overly PC reaction that you always have whenever anyone, regardless of the situation, is accused of racism. You're the most PC person on this website, it's just you get on a soapbox when it comes to racism accusations and not actual racism itself.

No-one could be more PC than you.

[Tom4784]

No-one could be more PC than you.

So you've got nothing more to actually add to the discussion, then.

[Brillopad]

So you've got nothing more to actually add to the discussion, then.

Not with you. It’s the same old, same old. I’ve said my piece and I am not going to keep saying it.

[Maru]

A bit of an over-reaction I think over a hoodie as it doesn't seem intentional. I'd make the same error as I'm not really wired to look for outrage or offense in every detail. Honestly it seems a bit unhealthy for our culture to be so obsessed with racism/sexism/-phobia, etc... I mean unless it's happening to an individual personally (which is understandable), but now it seems like society gets caught in the outrage machine from simple exposure.

The first 20 years of my life everyone but my immediate family were minorities, and if the media caught wind of even half the **** we say here, we'd all be doxxed, tared, and feathered for sure... quite scary times I think for someone who is not fully mentally/emotionally developed to have to be so hyper-critical about every little thing they write or tweet. I'm glad I wasn't raised with social media...

Anyway I think the criticism is frankly valid, it's just the emotional over-reaction to everything is getting a bit repetitive and domineering for me.

Addiction is the story of 2017. But not to opioids.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2017-launched-our-addiction-to-outrage/2017/12/27/e3324a1c-ea7d-11e7-b698-91d4e35920a3_story.html?utm_term=.0b689c3fe82b

Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/

Great reads

[Brillopad]

A bit of an over-reaction I think over a hoodie as it doesn't seem intentional. I'd make the same error as I'm not really wired to look for outrage or offense in every detail. Honestly it seems a bit unhealthy for our culture to be so obsessed with racism/sexism/-phobia, etc... I mean unless it's happening to an individual personally (which is understandable), but now it seems like society gets caught in the outrage machine from simple exposure.

The first 20 years of my life everyone but my immediate family were minorities, and if the media caught wind of even half the **** we say here, we'd all be doxxed, tared, and feathered for sure... quite scary times I think for someone who is not fully mentally/emotionally developed to have to be so hyper-critical about every little thing they write or tweet. I'm glad I wasn't raised with social media...

Anyway I think the criticism is frankly valid, it's just the emotional over-reaction to everything is getting a bit repetitive and domineering for me.

Addiction is the story of 2017. But not to opioids.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2017-launched-our-addiction-to-outrage/2017/12/27/e3324a1c-ea7d-11e7-b698-91d4e35920a3_story.html?utm_term=.0b689c3fe82b

Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/

Great reads

Great post?

[bots]

A bit of an over-reaction I think over a hoodie as it doesn't seem intentional. I'd make the same error as I'm not really wired to look for outrage or offense in every detail. Honestly it seems a bit unhealthy for our culture to be so obsessed with racism/sexism/-phobia, etc... I mean unless it's happening to an individual personally (which is understandable), but now it seems like society gets caught in the outrage machine from simple exposure.

The first 20 years of my life everyone but my immediate family were minorities, and if the media caught wind of even half the **** we say here, we'd all be doxxed, tared, and feathered for sure... quite scary times I think for someone who is not fully mentally/emotionally developed to have to be so hyper-critical about every little thing they write or tweet. I'm glad I wasn't raised with social media...

Anyway I think the criticism is frankly valid, it's just the emotional over-reaction to everything is getting a bit repetitive and domineering for me.

Addiction is the story of 2017. But not to opioids.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2017-launched-our-addiction-to-outrage/2017/12/27/e3324a1c-ea7d-11e7-b698-91d4e35920a3_story.html?utm_term=.0b689c3fe82b

Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/

Great reads

I do agree to a certain extent. I mean slogans have been put on T shirts for decades designed to shock and to make people think. So who cares?

The interesting thing in this particular case is that in order to be offended by the item, one would actually need to buy it and wear it. Which one would have thought would be an impossible set of circumstances.

[Ammi]

I do agree to a certain extent. I mean slogans have been put on T shirts for decades designed to shock and to make people think. So who cares?

The interesting thing in this particular case is that in order to be offended by the item, one would actually need to buy it and wear it. Which one would have thought would be an impossible set of circumstances.

..yeah I do understand that it would have to be purchased and worn for someone to be able to put a negative race related connotation to it...but that to me is one of the big things about it in that it’s starting to feel inclusive then and excluding some for their race.../...that then becomes prejudice which laws are there to protect...for me, it’s not so much the advertisement but more That it’s a garment that shouldn’t have been produced in the first place because it could rule out a whole section of society from purchasing it...and also obviously could cause offence...a black child should be able to wear the same garment as a white child without any negtive associations with their race...

...hmmm I have to say though I am a bit conflicted with the advertising of it though ..because I’m not sure whether that decision..to bring attention to it in the campaign etc..?....was something that was purposely done for this attention it’s getting..which to me does act as a mockery and starts to dilute racism so the best thing is to just let it be removed from the shelves but give it no more attention, which only feeds into the intention and gives exactly what was wanted and hoped for...I think I felt that stance with the Dove ad ...but then, is that right either...should we just ‘turn away’..from these decisions these large companies are making so frequently when it seems that everyone can see the obvious instantly...other than those decision makers who are actually employed to see... I mean back in the day there were very cruel and negative terms for children with mental disabilities and conditions...would it be felt acceptable for one of those terms to be now used on a garment which would exclude it from being worn by some children because of their disability...

[Maru]

Great post?

Are you still deciding? :think: (:laugh:)

I do agree to a certain extent. I mean slogans have been put on T shirts for decades designed to shock and to make people think. So who cares?

The interesting thing in this particular case is that in order to be offended by the item, one would actually need to buy it and wear it. Which one would have thought would be an impossible set of circumstances.

Very good points and something I wouldn't have thought of. See? This isn't something we would think about anymore if we're in the middle of being outraged. I suggest we as society takes 15 minute breaks in-between pitchforking sessions.

Maybe it doesn't help that we've stretched comedy/casual conversation in definition to include almost anything above and past the line. I can see that creating a perception of people not really taking these things seriously, but also aids in creating the overarching perception that, "we", the people condone --at least subjectively-- intolerance or ridicule of it's most disenfranchised subjects. So yeah this is a very casual example of that, but when comedians go too far, we tend to allow for the moving of the line in order to accommodate personal expression. And of course the further you move that line, the further up the "middleground" moves, so it allows for the precipice of misinterpretation.

It also doesn't help that most people are not too thrilled when certain subjects involves their sacred lamb. However, because we all disagree on what our sacred lambs, casual media casually cuts straight through all that and it creates a space where I think that scenarios can develop that create offense, intentionally or not. That then opens room for the argument that the intent to "harm" was a product of subconscious feelings and thus, our most outraged individuals demand that their sacred lambs to be coveted.

I try to be aware of this delineation, but it's impossible to be conscious of every single label/icon/symbol that could create the appearance of harm. I would not have thought of monkeys having to do with racism for blacks, but that's then that's something I'm not in a hurry to educate myself on as I don't want to accidentally make those associations in other incidents unintentionally. Kinda like how easy it was for India to be mis-gendered due to the constant conversation of whether she was really a she or a him (just to use as a far simpler example).

You know back in the day (omg the day), we would not be in such a rush to put out material that would/could cause offense. So when someone made a poster or put something up that was clearly out of those boundaries, it was much easier to say "Oh well that was definitely intentional because they surely know better". Now it's hard to see where exactly the offense is actually being created as it could just simply be someone elses personal interpretation since the line has shifted so much through casual discourse.

Anyway not too fond of going back to that era, but it's an interesting point you brought up and it got me thinking in that territory.


Kinda nuts they have to go to this extent. Yet another reason to online shop maybe?
H&M closes all its stores in South Africa after protests
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/13/news/companies/hm-south-africa/index.html

[Northern Monkey]

It deffo comes across as racist putting a black kid in it.I do remember back at primary school many moons ago you’d sometimes hear the black kids called monkeys.

I don’t think they need to pull the top because obviously it’s up to the parents if they buy it for their kid but putting a black model in is asking for trouble.
Part of me thinks it was a deliberate publicity stunt.

[user104658]

Perhaps the people actually involved in the photoshoot were having a long day and simply didn't think, I doubt the picture was originally posed with any intent, HOWEVER from there on its exactly the same as the Dove commercial;

There's no feasible way that this got all the way into a published ad without SOMEONE saying something - even if that's just "I know we don't mean anything by this but it's obviously going to cause problems", and yet they chose to proceed. That's where questions need to be asked if anywhere, in my opinion.

It can only be a grab for viral marketing. I'm pretty sure it's been proven at this point that the most important part of raising brand awareness and generating sales is simple exposure... And the content / slant of that exposure matters very little. Negative marketing that generates news stories (which are also FREE, unlike traditional advertising) is just as effective as if not more effevtive than a smaller, positive ad campaign.

You see similar with movies / games etc. quite often. If they gain notoriety they will make money... Doesn't matter if the content is actually trash.

Also, Trump.

[Maru]

Perhaps the people actually involved in the photoshoot were having a long day and simply didn't think, I doubt the picture was originally posed with any intent, HOWEVER from there on its exactly the same as the Dove commercial;

There's no feasible way that this got all the way into a published ad without SOMEONE saying something - even if that's just "I know we don't mean anything by this but it's obviously going to cause problems", and yet they chose to proceed. That's where questions need to be asked if anywhere, in my opinion.

It can only be a grab for viral marketing. I'm pretty sure it's been proven at this point that the most important part of raising brand awareness and generating sales is simple exposure... And the content / slant of that exposure matters very little. Negative marketing that generates news stories (which are also FREE, unlike traditional advertising) is just as effective as if not more effevtive than a smaller, positive ad campaign.

You see similar with movies / games etc. quite often. If they gain notoriety they will make money... Doesn't matter if the content is actually trash.

Also, Trump.

Maybe we should stop being complicit then with our outrage :laugh: It's like a wood chipper...

But yeah, I'd say that backfired if it was intentional. I like to think there's always a 25-50% chance because that's just how the media generally works is to illicit strong reactions. But, if it was put together by an overseas employee for example, then they may have not had the idea in their head to see the problem. For example, this flub... (https://consumerist.com/2007/04/20/bad-translation-software-called-couch-******-brown/)

International advertising (wiki)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_advertising

7 International Marketing Campaigns That Failed to Translate
http://www.k-international.com/blog/7-international-marketing-campaigns-that-failed-to-translate/

I could see it now. Oh, Africa... I have an idea... they like jungles right? -_- The irony will be if the jackets are donated/liquidated, that they very possibly could end up in the hands of someone in a third world country someplace who would have no clue about the symbolism... I don't know, where else do material goods from bad ad campaigns go to die? Seems wasteful to just dispose of them outright unless they can reuse the material. (or maybe remove/cover the graphic)

[Brillopad]

https://e3.365dm.com/18/01/750x563/skynews-h-and-m-racist-childrens-clothing_4201301.jpg?bypass-service-worker&20180109065946

This was the one they removed from sale.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-weeknd-ends-ties-with-hm-over-racist-advert-featuring-black-child-11200833


The Man United Romelu Lukaku
did a photo shop version
shown on a TV News

https://e3.365dm.com/18/01/1096x616/skynews-romelu-lukaku-hm-hoodie_4201534.jpg?bypass-service-worker&20180109123937



Alot of Free Publicity?

He is just a footballer.

[Tom4784]

'He doesn't have a right to an opinion, he's just a footballer.'

[Brillopad]

'He doesn't have a right to an opinion, he's just a footballer.'

We all have a right to an opinion! But some are making out his opinion is an informed fact.

[Tom4784]

We all have a right to an opinion! But some are making out his opinion is an informed fact.

Again, you show you have no understanding of the difference between a fact and an opinion. This is basic stuff, Brillo.

What's this apparent opinion made fact that you're referring to? Go on, tell us.