And People Thought Blatant Racism Didn't Exist Anymore

[rainerann]

Evidently, you've made assumptions about the statement in my original post, which referred to the historical evidence to black people being called a monkey, ignored my questions, and in turn, have asked me questions.

I have no children; however, I’m not sure how having them would make the difference in noticing racist undertones in an ad. Children are called many things, be a child or adult, calling a black person a monkey is racist. If you don’t understand or appreciate that, then there’s really nothing more to say about the matter.

It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t have children. It would seem most of the people supporting the claim that this is racist have no children and are oblivious to the reality that monkey is commonly used to describe children’s behavior. I bet it would also bruise the ego too much to change your position now and do some real investigating into how often monkeys are used in designing children’s clothing.

We also say people are monkeying around if they are goofing off. This isn’t racist either.

Basically, this has again become a popular way to form a clique with other people. There is the obvious incentive to join because then you will not be called a racist.

I feel no inclination to join this clique or further perpetuate a label that was used in a derogatory way in the past. If this were a grown man I might feel differently, but we are talking about children and a world where monkeys are cute jungle creatures who get to climb trees and do other fun things.

The inability for people to see things through the eyes of a child and recognize the difference between associating a monkey with a child and a monkey with a man is astounding.

It is just not age appropriate to tell children that they can’t have fun pictures of monkeys on their clothing because of the evil done in the past. We should be encouraging children to see themselves as equally able to enjoy, entertain, or wear a picture of a fun little monkey.

A child’s world is not an adult world. All children will see monkeys as fun creatures unless adults tell them not to. I can’t imagine how anyone can think it is appropriate to tell a young child that they can’t wear a picture of a fun monkey on their sweater.

Has anyone been to a zoo? Monkeys are awesome and beautiful creatures. This is what children see and associate with the image on their sweater. They don’t see the past and it not age appropriate to teach to see things this way instead of teaching them to play like monkeys for as long as they can get away with it.

When you become an adult, things will change and they won’t be able to play this way anymore.

 

[Thunderian]

 

[UnderAlienControl]

 

[elsbet]

I really expected something more blatant like a direct reference to someone being inferior based on race. I think this is a completely blown out of proportion and as usual, it gathers the clique together to ooh and aah about how racism still exists because calling people racist is a great way to win arguments by people who have none otherwise.

The reality is that a monkey is a common animal to use for children's clothing. If a white boy had worn this sweater and a black mother had put it on her child, no one would be saying anything because monkeys are often used in clothing for tiny people. There is a reason for this. It is because tiny people behave like monkeys and climb all over the place.

My son was like 14 months old when he could climb out of his crib. He was about 18 months old when he started climbing over baby gates. A monkey was an appropriate nickname for him. I used to tell him that he was like a little monkey.

So I really think this is blown out of proportion. There is no reason to suggest that the boy wearing the sweater has anything to do with race and isn't wearing a sweater with a reference to a monkey because of his age, but some people will see racism everywhere.

Even if you could relate this ad to former stereotypes like the mammy or the uncle in early advertisements, you would still be stretching it. Finally, at the end of the day, this is far from blatant racism.

As a mother of young children living in the year 2018, I feel perfectly comfortable with my son wearing the exact same sweatshirt as the boy in the ad. If I didn't feel this way, that would be racist. Racism is defined as seeing a boy who is black wearing this sweater and thinking that this means that only black people should wear this sweater.

As a result of evolving beyond this thinking to the point where an advertising campaign for children's clothing includes black and white children, I find it hard to see this as "blatant" racism. Add this to the fact that consumers frequently see different races in clothing ads and we don't determine that a certain design belongs to a specific race anymore. This is just common knowledge. A little black boy wearing a sweater does not mean that sweater can only be worn by black people. If someone said something like this, that would be an example of "blatant" racism.

The subject of racism in response to this ad is really based on a delusion and we should try to balance out our opinion towards things like this with reality.

I had to enlarge the picture to even see it. If that kid was given that shirt intentionally, because it said *monkey*, more likely it was to generate the kind of malicious negative energy we're enjoying right now.

Some folks can't help but feed the negative things.

*cue finger-pointing session*

 

[Thunderian]

I thought we were all supposed to be colour-blind. Maybe whoever put that t-shirt on the black kid didn't see him as black, but just as a kid.

 

[Orwell's mentor]

It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t have children. It would seem most of the people supporting the claim that this is racist have no children and are oblivious to the reality that monkey is commonly used to describe children’s behavior. I bet it would also bruise the ego too much to change your position now and do some real investigating into how often monkeys are used in designing children’s clothing.

We also say people are monkeying around if they are goofing off. This isn’t racist either.

Basically, this has again become a popular way to form a clique with other people. There is the obvious incentive to join because then you will not be called a racist.

I feel no inclination to join this clique or further perpetuate a label that was used in a derogatory way in the past. If this were a grown man I might feel differently, but we are talking about children and a world where monkeys are cute jungle creatures who get to climb trees and do other fun things.

The inability for people to see things through the eyes of a child and recognize the difference between associating a monkey with a child and a monkey with a man is astounding.

It is just not age appropriate to tell children that they can’t have fun pictures of monkeys on their clothing because of the evil done in the past. We should be encouraging children to see themselves as equally able to enjoy, entertain, or wear a picture of a fun little monkey.

A child’s world is not an adult world. All children will see monkeys as fun creatures unless adults tell them not to. I can’t imagine how anyone can think it is appropriate to tell a young child that they can’t wear a picture of a fun monkey on their sweater.

Has anyone been to a zoo? Monkeys are awesome and beautiful creatures. This is what children see and associate with the image on their sweater. They don’t see the past and it not age appropriate to teach to see things this way instead of teaching them to play like monkeys for as long as they can get away with it.

When you become an adult, things will change and they won’t be able to play this way anymore.

Hrmmm, I’m not sure where you’re going with the “bruising the ego” thing as you really don’t know me or who I am aside from what I post on this forum. I’m also confused why you’re attempting to make this personal as I brought up America’s history in how it’s viewed blacks over the centuries, something you’re clearly ignoring/denying in this thread. My stance on it has NOTHING to do with the ego; it has to do with the racist connotation in the ad. In essence, it’s about human and equal rights.

If you want to continue referring to your children and your experiences, that’s fine. If you can’t or won’t argue the points I’ve brought forth, that’s fine, too. I’m not sure how that has anything to do with a black child wearing a “Cool Monkey in the Jungle” sweatshirt, but if you can reconcile, rather than challenge, what appears to be your cognitive dissonance in the matter, then I’m glad it works for you.

 

[rainerann]

I had to enlarge the picture to even see it. If that kid was given that shirt intentionally, because it said *monkey*, more likely it was to generate the kind of malicious negative energy we're enjoying right now.

Some folks can't help but feed the negative things.

*cue finger-pointing session*

Well, there would need to be more evidence that there was malice involved because I could just as easily say that the child wearing this sweatshirt is a way to move forward because the reason for this is vague and there are too many assumptions made by people who seem to have very limited experience with children. If it were not common for monkeys to be used in childrens clothing, this complaint might be more legitimate as well, but it is extemely common to see monkeys used in children clothing. This is because most children see monkeys as cute, fun characters. They don't see the adult definition of monkey and they should enjoy the freedom of knowing this definition.

I support teaching this to older children because it is part of history, but it is not age appropriate to teach children that there is a negative way to use the word monkey. I also believe that parents should have the freedom to not have their child wear this sweatshirt if they feel offended by it. However, that doesn't mean that all parents are offended by this just because they are black or that we should label this as being racially motivated.

A monkey is an animal, not a symbol of racism. When children are in early grade levels, learning simple things like the names of different animals and their identifying characteristics is a normal part of early education. To a child, a monkey is a jungle animal who makes a sound like ooh, ooh, ahh, ahh that is funny to them. They climb trees and do other things that most kids like to imagine doing. A black child should not be exculded from the experience of enjoying monkeys because of the way it was used as a derogatory label in the past.

As adults, it is good to remember what it was really like to be a kid from time to time and remember having an imagination that could entertain swinging in trees like the monkeys. If people could recognize the difference between the consciousness of an adult in comparison with a child, most of this discussion would be eliminated.

The way I see this being discussed across the internet, it is like Curious George is a racist cartoon.

This is the way children learn about monkeys.

It would be nice if people could slow down a little bit and really stop and think about the difference between the way a child sees wearing a monkey on their sweatshirt and the way an adult sees wearing a monkey on their sweatshirt. They are completely different and I side with the child's perspective. The adult discussion about these things is awful. I would rather be a kid talking about monkeys right now than an adult.

 

[rainerann]

Hrmmm, I’m not sure where you’re going with the “bruising the ego” thing as you really don’t know me or who I am aside from what I post on this forum. I’m also confused why you’re attempting to make this personal as I brought up America’s history in how it’s viewed blacks over the centuries, something you’re clearly ignoring/denying in this thread. My stance on it has NOTHING to do with the ego; it has to do with the racist connotation in the ad. In essence, it’s about human and equal rights.

If you want to continue referring to your children and your experiences, that’s fine. If you can’t or won’t argue the points I’ve brought forth, that’s fine, too. I’m not sure how that has anything to do with a black child wearing a “Cool Monkey in the Jungle” sweatshirt, but if you can reconcile, rather than challenge, what appears to be your cognitive dissonance in the matter, then I’m glad it works for you.

I understand your questions. I addressed them already and don't feel the need to repeat my awareness of the former derogatory caricatures of black people like mammy and uncle. My original post referenced this already, so you were repeating something I addressed and are now suggesting that I didn't address this. What I didn't do was repeat myself.

So if you are fine with the idea that we should teach children that they should not learn about monkeys equally as early as toddler years, then this is your prerogative. However, it is obvious that you are using an adult perspective to describe a child's perspective because you don't have a lot of experience with children when they are in the early years of learning about animals in the jungle and in other places. These are very basic aspects of an early childhood science education because learning about animals like monkeys and where they live and what they eat, is entertaining to them and educational at the same time. This should not be changed to accomodate an adult perspective towards the use of the word "monkey."

Here is a quick search of monkey and children's clothing if you are interested in really seeing the other side of the perspective and finding out whether it is common for monkeys to be used in childrens clothing or whether I am just making an argument that it is common because of my cognitive dissosance. https://www.google.com/search?q=monkey+children's+clothes&client=firefox-b-1-ab&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi36MHI3c7YAhUGyGMKHY-SARwQ_AUIxwMoAQ&biw=1760&bih=887

I think that if you genuinely take a look at this link without predisposed bias, you will see that common application of the monkey on children's clothing creates the expectation for us as adults to treat children equally and not discriminate what children wear based on race. All children should be equally able to wear a monkey on their clothing without this suggesting a derogatory meaning. Black children should not be exempt from enjoying the experience of learning about monkeys because it was used as a derogatory label in the past. Older children should learn these things because they are historical. Children should not be burdened with these associations that hinder and interupt their education of animals.

 

[grateful servant]

I'm white, not racist but maybe naive because I don't think this should be such the big deal that 'celebs' have made it out to be - especially LJ who posed for this Vogue shoot. (photographer- Annie Leibovitz). http://watchingthewatchers.org/news/1378/annie-leibovitz-monkeys-around-lebron

 

[Serveto]

As a football fan, I grew up hearing the word 'monkey' being shouted at my favourite players. It was considered a racial slur and is still deemed one. How then, given the history of its usage, can HM even excuse their adoption of such a loaded term?

I understand. Even though, until now, I have never heard of them, I think H&M were ill-advised to use the image. I grew up -in another era- watching my dad watching NFL with Howard Cosell announcing. Until one day, after a flurry of controversy, Mr. Cossell was off the air ...

 

[elsbet]

Well, there would need to be more evidence that there was malice involved because I could just as easily say that the child wearing this sweatshirt is a way to move forward because the reason for this is vague and there are too many assumptions made by people who seem to have very limited experience with children. If it were not common for monkeys to be used in childrens clothing, this complaint might be more legitimate as well, but it is extemely common to see monkeys used in children clothing. This is because most children see monkeys as cute, fun characters. They don't see the adult definition of monkey and they should enjoy the freedom of knowing this definition.

I support teaching this to older children because it is part of history, but it is not age appropriate to teach children that there is a negative way to use the word monkey. I also believe that parents should have the freedom to not have their child wear this sweatshirt if they feel offended by it. However, that doesn't mean that all parents are offended by this just because they are black or that we should label this as being racially motivated.

A monkey is an animal, not a symbol of racism. When children are in early grade levels, learning simple things like the names of different animals and their identifying characteristics is a normal part of early education. To a child, a monkey is a jungle animal who makes a sound like ooh, ooh, ahh, ahh that is funny to them. They climb trees and do other things that most kids like to imagine doing. A black child should not be exculded from the experience of enjoying monkeys because of the way it was used as a derogatory label in the past.

As adults, it is good to remember what it was really like to be a kid from time to time and remember having an imagination that could entertain swinging in trees like the monkeys. If people could recognize the difference between the consciousness of an adult in comparison with a child, most of this discussion would be eliminated.

The way I see this being discussed across the internet, it is like Curious George is a racist cartoon.

This is the way children learn about monkeys.

It would be nice if people could slow down a little bit and really stop and think about the difference between the way a child sees wearing a monkey on their sweatshirt and the way an adult sees wearing a monkey on their sweatshirt. They are completely different and I side with the child's perspective. The adult discussion about these things is awful. I would rather be a kid talking about monkeys right now than an adult.

Ohgawd, rainerann, I was agreeing with you.
OP pointing it out and identifying a supposed connection is bigoted, in itself.

Theater of the absurd, tonight..

 

[The Zone]

Mick Jagger is a self professed monkey man!

 

[UnderAlienControl]

I understand. Even though, until now, I have never heard of them, I think H&M were ill-advised to use the image. I grew up -in another era- watching my dad watching NFL with Howard Cosell announcing. Until one day, after a flurry of controversy, Mr. Cossell was off the air ...

Cosell wasn't racist. He said the phrase in admiration of Garrett's agility, spontaneously by the way, no malice intended. Between a poor metaphor in the context of the event, and people who obviously wanted to misinterpret what he meant for controversy's sake, this issue was blown out of proportion. Ali loved HC and HC loved Ali, and I don't think that relationship would've prospered under racism...

 

[elsbet]

I'm white, not racist but maybe naive because I don't think this should be such the big deal that 'celebs' have made it out to be - especially LJ who posed for this Vogue shoot. (photographer- Annie Leibovitz). http://watchingthewatchers.org/news/1378/annie-leibovitz-monkeys-around-lebron

Maybe because your family wasn't bigoted and/ or it wasn't tolerated in your home.

 

[elsbet]

Cosell wasn't racist. He said the phrase in admiration of Garrett's agility, spontaneously by the way, no malice intended. Between a poor metaphor in the context of the event, and people who obviously wanted to misinterpret what he meant for controversy's sake, this issue was blown out of proportion. Ali loved HC and HC loved Ali, and I don't think that relationship would've prospered under racism...

".. people who obviously wanted to misinterpret what he meant for controversy's sake"

We have a lot of those folks here.

 

[Thunderian]

http://www.ebony.com/news-views/mother-of-hm-model-responds-terry-mango#ixzz53qIxvK3f

 

[Serveto]

".. people who obviously wanted to misinterpret what he meant for controversy's sake"

We have a lot of those folks here.

People are, in my opinion, at times understandably sensitive about black people being identified with monkeys. Leaving Cosell out of the equation, I don't think it's always an issue of wanting to misinterpret. In this case, I think the execs at H&M were ill-advised to use the image. Although I am not usually known as a "social justice warrior," maybe, unless it was controversy they wanted, they should have hired a diversity consultant prior to taking the sweatshirt to market.

 

[rainerann]

http://www.ebony.com/news-views/mother-of-hm-model-responds-terry-mango#ixzz53qIxvK3f

The picture of him and his mom is so cute. He is a darling little boy with a beautiful smile.

 

[UnderAlienControl]

To be clear, I wasn't making a statement that he was racist. I just noted, and somewhat remember, the controversy. I provided a vid in which Cosell briefly explained and exonerated himself.

Oh, I know you weren't. Your post didn't come off like that. I was kinda explaining it to everybody else. After I typed that sentence, I enjoyed how the exchange mirrored the "Canadian Argument" tweets...

 

[grateful servant]

Maybe because your family wasn't bigoted and/ or it wasn't tolerated in your home.

Maybe. All the same, I'm not insensitive to how others may perceive the photo. We all come from different experiences as is evident in this thread. It's the hypocrisy and double standard from the celebs that I was pointing out. Another article I saw today was about a boy's b-ball team in Cinci that played with racial slurs on the back of their jerseys - that is truly racist and something people should be upset about. The sweatshirt seems just an ignorant (clueless) oversight.