And People Thought Blatant Racism Didn't Exist Anymore

Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
2,803
Likes
5,430
It's just weird because you're boycotting a company for it's capitalist practices but then you're saying that you support capitalism.
What are you talking about? This is the definition of capitalism. "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"

I think you don't really understand what capitalism is that you are defining capitalism as a system that encourages outsourcing. Capitalism is the freedom to own and create businesses without requiring state permission or some other form of permission like you would see in communism.

What you describe as communism is actually a free market system where people voluntarily give and are generous to other people. However, communism is a system where the state owns everything and determines what can and cannot be created. Behind this state-owned persona, there is a person or small group of people who decide what can and cannot be produced. It is very similar to the Wizard of Oz. The state is the wizard with a man hiding behind this more intimidating entity.

What you describe where people are more generous is a free market system where people voluntarily recognize where oppression is and respond to it in a way that creates pressure to remove this oppression like I do by not buying clothes from places like H&M.
So these super stars who are complaining about this ad and saying they are going to boycott because of this are responsible for creating this economic system that you envision. In theory, they should already oppose spending money where there is oppression because they have economic power that most people don't.

So for them to have an issue with this company because of an ad like this all of the sudden, is just another example of a trendy social issue that takes advantage of the present breakdown of community. People want to feel a sense of community and these trendy social issues fill that void for whatever reason. Maybe because they are afraid of facing the real oppression that exists and the all of the possibilities the future holds, so they cling to these issues that give them a community to belong with. All the while, they don't realize that the last 40 years of breaking down community and building positive relationships with their neighbors replacing this with different forms of media is why they have the void that they fill with social issues that require facing no real fear.

No one is going to criticize someone for taking a stand against racism. It is the most popular issue and a person becomes popular for just saying they agree with someone who says they disagree with racism. This is because there have been many, many people who have already done the hard work with this issue. People don't want to engage with real issues the way the pioneers of the civil rights movement did, so they band together with these superficial issues that are on the caboose of the history of civil rights.

And it is because of this fear and insecurity that we are missing an opportunity to create real change and move forward. We could be embracing this as an opportunity to say that those labels no longer mean what they did in the past. Instead, we are trying to find protection in a crowd of people who feel comfortable fighting against racism as though they will also be able to find the same glory that so many people have already found for doing so.

Therefore, I also think these people are trying to gain positive attention for themselves for the sake of getting attention, and raising this issue as though it were blatant is entirely a selfish pursuit.
 





mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
6,072
Likes
10,115
However, communism is a system where the state owns everything
Communism is a stateless and classless society governed by the community where the means of production are not owned by a corporation or the state, but by the workers and community as a whole. It's a system of decentralized self government. I don't know where you're getting that random definition about the wizard of oz and the state but it's wrong. The goal of communism is to get rid of class divisions for an equal society. That means that it's necessary to dismantle the state.
the freedom to own and create businesses without requiring state permission or some other form of permission like you would see in communism
There is no state, no one asks for permission. In communism the means of production are controlled by the people who work in them, it's public ownership... they don't have to answer to a corporation or the state, they work together in a democratic environment to produce goods for the people in their community. It's not profit driven, it's need driven.
I think you don't really understand what capitalism is that you are defining capitalism as a system that encourages outsourcing.
I'm not defining capitalism in any way but since capitalism is concerned with profit, outsourcing is encouraged because it's cheap labor, that's why all corporations do it. The main driving force in capitalism is profit, you're in denial if you think that outsourcing is not a good thing to them. You can't criticize a capitalistic practice then say you fully support capitalism.
 





Last edited:

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
6,072
Likes
10,115
What you describe as communism is actually a free market system where people voluntarily give and are generous to other people.
What I was describing was not a free market... I was describing the definition of communism and Marx's theory. That's the literal definition of communism, the community's control over the means of production... there is no state, the government is made up of the people themselves.
What you describe where people are more generous is a free market system where people voluntarily recognize where oppression is and respond to it in a way that creates pressure to remove this oppression like I do by not buying clothes from places like H&M.
I'm not opposed to a free market as long as it's not a complete wild west with exploitation everywhere, there have to be rules. Also... this whole "vote with your wallet" thing seems ineffective, it's hard to get enough people to actually try to change things and the companies still do what they want regardless. It's also not going to create meaningful change without actually addressing the root of the issue. If you don't address the root, the same problems will keep arising. Exploitation of labor is an intrinsic part of the capitalist system... at least currently. There is really no such thing as ethical consumption with capitalism.

Anyway this is irrelevant to the topic of this thread... you can message me if you really want to discuss this more.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
1,412
Likes
2,767
And it is because of this fear and insecurity that we are missing an opportunity to create real change and move forward. We could be embracing this as an opportunity to say that those labels no longer mean what they did in the past. Instead, we are trying to find protection in a crowd of people who feel comfortable fighting against racism as though they will also be able to find the same glory that so many people have already found for doing so.
Though it is a legitimate fear because of 200+ years of racial aggression and prejudice in a predominantly white country. The labels shouldn't retain their meaning but they are a part of history and not something to be pushed aside as if they never meant anything to anyone. Those labels may not mean anything to you but they do to other people and it's fairly insensitive to brush aside the strife and systematic bullying that has occurred for so long because ultimately comments like yours are the preview of someone uncomfortable talking about the issue which is an issue. It has typically been easier to find protection amongst those that don't wish you harm and if they were willing to fight to erase ignorance and bring about positive change I see no harm. They aren't the activist of the 60's and they don't have to be.

Not many fight racism for the sake of glory and I'm not sure where you get this assumption but many do actually fight to amend the wrongs of 200+ years.
 





Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,196
Likes
1,432
I think it should make sense as to why black people wouldnt want to be associated with things they were negatively referred to as or associated with in the past. Especially in the media that projects things to the public. And if i step into the shoes of another, I also think it makes sense as to why peoples careers get hurt or blackballed completely when they negatively mention the Jews in the media. Allegedly. Seems to me that if we're going to complain about blacks asking for respect in the media, we need to stop picking on the "little" guy. If we're not racist/prejudiced that is.

Me personally, I try to define myself and not let the words, views , or beliefs of others sway me from who I define myself as. I think this is a stance more black people should take in a society that for centuries at the very least has said "we don't really like you" but that's just me. The model being a Kenyan also highlights the problem with the blanket label "black" as a Kenyan born experience is completely different than an American/European born black. So their view in regards to the context of monkey/gorilla/ape shouldn't apply here
 





Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,216
The wealthy and professional class fled cuba in droves thats true. They werent too keen on losing their privilage.

Thats not to say cuba doesnt have problems but lets atleast be honest


Also this has nothing to do with a racist clothing advertisement.

Did u ever look up micro vs macro?
Why would the wealthy and professional class lose their privilege if Cuba isn’t communist now? Yes, Cuba has a lot of problems the least of which is that their citizens are living less of a life under communism.

Someone brought it up...I just added my 2 cents.

No, why should I look it up? I stand by my comments about the parents. Then I see that Rainerann added that there was an interview with the mom with pictures of her and her son. They are happy and don’t seem to be concerned about the ad. So, then, if they aren’t concerned why should you be?
 





Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
3,765
Likes
6,704
Have you read his book? His racism becomes even more heavy handed in his book The Descent of Man.

I'll tell you how Darwin became synonymous with racism. He, in his book, state that we're all relatives to apes but the blacks were the closest to the apes and therefore less evolved. Meaning they were less intelligent and more barbaric, which is why they were enslaved and put in zoos all across Europe. There were scientists before Darwin that stated something similar to this but Darwin sharpened it and popularized it leading Great Britain to use his ideas, go to Africa, take their things and enslave them because they were less evolved and needed "civilization" from the much more evolved humans the whites. Other European countries followed suite closely afterwards. It's not surprising that the majority of Britain (whites) believe in Darwinian evolution and I would say even worship him because he allowed them to maintain a higher ranking in the social ranking of life.
I think Darwin is a chapter in the history of British imperialism.

I don't think I'm crazy to think there's something a little suspect about a guy whose most famous book is not titled.... On the Origin of Species....

we hear always about the book referred to as the Origin of Species... that is deliberately misleading....

the book's full title is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
My thing is.... if Darwin is just this pure scientist guy or whatever... why is there such a cult around him? I don't see a cult around Isaac Newton or Galileo.... someone might say Darwin is more recent than those two..... okay but Einstein is more recent than Darwin... I have my problems with Freud but even look at Freud.... Freud brought man's (and woman's) unconscious to the forefront..... if Darwin was just a pure scientific thing..... there would be no reason for the weird cult around him..... someone could say it's a necessary response to creationism.... a scientific dispute.... but I don't see a cult forming around Al Gore even though he promoted the idea of global warming...... so if we take that line then why isn't there a cult around global warming theorists?.....

were Darwin a purely scientific thing..... there would not be the weird and strange cult around him..... I am not against the cult of heroic historic figures.... I think it's wonderful to celebrate great figures of history and encourage their imitation..... but come on.... a cult of a scientist....... if we're going to build a cult around a scientist why not Einstein or Freud? why Darwin? Einstein and Freud are way more interesting than Darwin..... they are much more transcendental and inspiring.... or what about Tesla? if we're going to build cults around greats scientists, let's celebrate Tesla, let's celebrate Einstein, let's.... with some serious reservations..... celebrate Freud.... Freud's analysis of the unconscious is something extremely important in history...... however I think Freud also is somewhat responsible for the sexual "revolution".... that aspect of Freud I think should be purged from people's thinking...... people should be taught to repress their sexuality.... that might sound oh-so-shocking to the people of today.... but Freud believed that sexual repression was a problem and that sexuality should become uninhibited..... when we saw Miley Cyrus twerking on that dude Robin Thicke like twice her age..... we should feel a sense of disgust and we should aim that sense of disgust against Freud as he is partly responsible..... but Freud's exploration of the unconscious however I think makes Freud eligible for immortality......

in any case, if Darwin is just pure science.... and there is nothing transcendental, inspiring about Darwin... then there is no need for a cult of Darwin..... we don't have a cult around geologists.... we don't even comparable cults around Tesla, Einstein, Freud, etc...... so why should Darwin get a cult?

because Darwin is a religious thing...... social Darwinism and eugenics were not corruptions of Darwinism..... they were already latent within Darwin... and in some cases even showed themselves openly in his writing

anyways I agree with KF on the issue of Darwinism and I wanted to continue this discussion of Darwin.....

however..... as to Darwin's role within the history of British imperialism....... people don't have to take it from me or from Kung Fu..... take it from a British aristocrat:

"English imperialism is inspired (among the educated) by the idea of Rome, by the history of Mommsen (whose maxims will justify anything), by Carlyle and by Nietzsche, and finally by Darwin and evolution."
 





mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
6,072
Likes
10,115
or what about Tesla? if we're going to build cults around greats scientists, let's celebrate Tesla
Yes.
people should be taught to repress their sexuality.... that might sound oh-so-shocking to the people of today.... but Freud believed that sexual repression was a problem and that sexuality should become uninhibited.....
I don't think it should be repressed but it definitely shouldn't be uninhibited either.
because Darwin is a religious thing...... social Darwinism and eugenics were not corruptions of Darwinism..... they were already latent within Darwin... and in some cases even showed themselves openly in his writing
That's true but the scientific aspect of his work is still sound.
 





Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,196
Likes
1,432
I am not sure I understood this, your point. Could you elaborate somewhat and further explain? I perhaps incorrectly understand you to be in essence saying that, for instance, the comments of the mother of the child are largely irrelevant because she, being neither an American- nor European-born black woman, doesn't fully understand the possible implications of the ad. Is this a fair, if imperfect, assessment of your position?
I don't feel her comments on their own are irrelevant. If that's how she feels then that's how she feels and she should be able to express that. But if we are to use her words as a reason as to why its not or shouldn't be offensive then I do believe her stance becomes irrelevant because of the context of where she was raised. At the end of the day though, even if she was an American/Euro born black, I'd still feel the same about it considering it's more about H&M and their decision making than it is the model
 





Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
3,765
Likes
6,704
Yes.

I don't think it should be repressed but it definitely shouldn't be uninhibited either.

That's true but the scientific aspect of his work is still sound.
Muslims were talking about evolution way before Darwin.

Evolution as Darwin interpreted it was a thinly veiled rationalization for British imperialism.

Evolution does not belong to Darwin. The idea of evolution should not be associated with Darwin. If evolution is so important then it can be kept. But evolution should be kept and Darwin and Spencer should be thrown out.

Not only is Darwin a patron saint of British imperialism but he is a patron saint of the scientism cult. These represent two diseases that should be rooted out.

Evolution does not belong to Darwin. He can be removed without removing evolution.
 





Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
663
Likes
954
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 am rather surprised...I would think the racist nature of this ad is obvious; even white people should be able to see it. I do, and I am half white( & half Japanese).

Also, yes, non-white people & especially blacks have historically been ostracized and dehumanized by the majority of whites, and it STILL continues today, as evidenced by this insensitive & blatantly offensive ad by H&M. And if you cannot honestly see the racism in the ad then you might want to delve into some historic research.

One major source of worldwide racism is the theory of evolution, which literally brainwashes people from a young age to believe the false idea that human beings “evolved” from apes, and that the lighter a person’s skin, hair, eyes & features, the more “evolved” they are.

That is one of the most foolish & ridiculous ideas humanity has blindly accepted & it is simply NOT TRUE. But so many falsely so-called “intellectuals” promote it so they regurgitate that nonsense & use it as a “justification” for racism.

The evolutionist & racist premise is: that if darker people are “less evolved” then they are not yet human & are more ape(animal) than man, therefore it is permissible to treat them as animals rather than human beings.

I just don’t jive with that.

But racists & eugenicists seem to believe it. Just look up the story of the African Pygmy man named Ota Benga. He was a young, Congolese family man out hunting for food for his wife and children, minding his own business, when a British explorer captured him, caged him & shipped him to the Bronx Zoo in 1906 to be featured in the primate exhibit.

He was literally housed with MONKEYS for years and people gawked & stared at him through glass & marveled at him as if he was an anthropological wonder—-a monkey in the more advanced stages of evolution that walked upright.

He never saw his wife or children again, and finally, after being deeply depressed, he committed suicide. I call it murder, because his kidnappers really killed him through his daily humiliation & suffering. They destroyed his spirit & dignity. He was violated & treated like an animal until eventually he lost all desire to live. Can you imagine what that must have been like for him?

A man, made in the image of God, with a soul, spirit & life breathed into him by our Creator, caged & mocked & snatched from his family & degraded and dehumanized until he could no longer bear another breath on this earth & saw relief only in death....

It is shocking, heartbreaking, infuriating & unacceptable.

Perhaps now you can understand why people, especially black folks, do not appreciate being called or compared to monkeys.
 





Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
1,412
Likes
2,767
I am rather surprised...I would think the racist nature of this ad is obvious; even white people should be able to see it. I do, and I am half white( & half Japanese).

Also, yes, non-white people & especially blacks have historically been ostracized and dehumanized by the majority of whites, and it STILL continues today, as evidenced by this insensitive & blatantly offensive ad by H&M. And if you cannot honestly see the racism in the ad then you might want to delve into some historic research.

One major source of worldwide racism is the theory of evolution, which literally brainwashes people from a young age to believe the false idea that human beings “evolved” from apes, and that the lighter a person’s skin, hair, eyes & features, the more “evolved” they are.

That is one of the most foolish & ridiculous ideas humanity has blindly accepted & it is simply NOT TRUE. But so many falsely so-called “intellectuals” promote it so they regurgitate that nonsense & use it as a “justification” for racism.

The evolutionist & racist premise is: that if darker people are “less evolved” then they are not yet human & are more ape(animal) than man, therefore it is permissible to treat them as animals rather than human beings.

I just don’t jive with that.

But racists & eugenicists seem to believe it. Just look up the story of the African Pygmy man named Ota Benga. He was a young, Congolese family man out hunting for food for his wife and children, minding his own business, when a British explorer captured him, caged him & shipped him to the Bronx Zoo in 1906 to be featured in the primate exhibit.

He was literally housed with MONKEYS for years and people gawked & stared at him through glass & marveled at him as if he was an anthropological wonder—-a monkey in the more advanced stages of evolution that walked upright.

He never saw his wife or children again, and finally, after being deeply depressed, he committed suicide. I call it murder, because his kidnappers really killed him through his daily humiliation & suffering. They destroyed his spirit & dignity. He was violated & treated like an animal until eventually he lost all desire to live. Can you imagine what that must have been like for him?

A man, made in the image of God, with a soul, spirit & life breathed into him by our Creator, caged & mocked & snatched from his family & degraded and dehumanized until he could no longer bear another breath on this earth & saw relief only in death....

It is shocking, heartbreaking, infuriating & unacceptable.

Perhaps now you can understand why people, especially black folks, do not appreciate being called or compared to monkeys.
Well said.
 





Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
2,145
Likes
2,606
Darwin's Taste for 'Science'
MMM.. ENDANGERED SPECIES

One of Charles Darwin's quirks was his curiosity as to how the animals he studied tasted. Throughout his life, he went around the world eating exotic species.

Charles Darwin's most civilized attempt at being a foodie was The Glutton Club. This club, organized when he was at Cambridge, got together to eat exotic animals. Because they were students in England, their reach was limited. They managed to eat hawk and bittern, but when they tried chewing on a brown owl, the kids found it too disgusting to continue. Darwin wrote that it was "indescribable."

That's saying a lot, considering how many other animals he could compare it to. Darwin became a naturalist by way of beetle collecting, and it wasn't unusual for him, even in his teen years, to try eating the beetles he picked up. Once he recorded being disappointed that a bombardier beetle got away from him by firing acid into his hand. He doesn't seem to have realized how much worse that could have been for him. :rolleyes:

During his voyages on The Beagle, Darwin could finally indulge himself. He ate the iguanas he studied on the Galapagos. He ate armadillo, which he claimed tasted like duck. He ate puma. The lesser rhea, known to scientists as Rhea darwinii, got its name because Darwin sent the few bits of it he hadn't eaten to London.

More here: https://io9.gizmodo.com/what-did-charles-darwin-put-in-his-mouth-pretty-much-e-1687788345
 





Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
2,803
Likes
5,430
Can you imagine what that must have been like for him?

A man, made in the image of God, with a soul, spirit & life breathed into him by our Creator, caged & mocked & snatched from his family & degraded and dehumanized until he could no longer bear another breath on this earth & saw relief only in death....

It is shocking, heartbreaking, infuriating & unacceptable.

Perhaps now you can understand why people, especially black folks, do not appreciate being called or compared to monkeys.
Yes, actually I really imagine what it is like to be caged and mocked and degraded and dehumanized. It is why I struggle with PTSD and it also influences my reasoning for using this as an opportunity to create change. I do know the history of this and I have also lived in a world where I have also never heard someone being called a monkey in a derogatory way. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that given the evidence of the prevalence of monkeys being used in children's clothing, the mother not having a problem with it, the child looking absolutely adorable in the sweater, we could take this as an opportunity to celebrate how far we have come since then.

I have looked at comments on this subject by numerous black people saying they don't have a problem with it either. It is more than likely because they have enjoyed some or most of their life not experiencing the same thing.

Therefore, like I said, this is anything but blatant. This is not a grown man calling another grown man a monkey. This is not directly used in any way that could be compared with a historical reference. We should empower people to change the message and not be chained to the message anymore. We should want to set people free from the past, not keep them chained to it.

When do you think people get to move on from this? What has to change before we can have an adorable little boy where a sweatshirt like this because he is an adorable little boy wearing a sweatshirt about monkey because little boys like to climb and play like other kids?

I think this really creates questions for what the next stage of the civil rights movement really looks like. Do we continue to chain ourselves to the past, or can we celebrate the changes that have been made and use them to change the future.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
751
Likes
807
Simply from a marketing perspective, there is absolutely no way that this was intentionally racist for the mere risk of backlash, both commercial as financial, in this age of political correctness and the amplified social justice war. A marketing screw-up, yes. Racist, no.

But there's definitely a lot of blatant racism left. If we would make a top 100 list of anti-white racism in the media in 2017 alone, an example of this gravity wouldn't even be mentioned, while in Libya, Arabs are again trading black slaves by the tens of thousands and in South-Africa, white boers are being murdered at a rate of 99 in 100,000, which makes it the most dangerous profession in the world.
 





Last edited:

llleopard

Established
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
Messages
300
Likes
754
This reminds me of Degrassi where a white rich girl made a poster of the rival girls volleyball team, calling their school a zoo and had depicted the black female captain as a gorilla.



In this case no one thought it was racist until the black captain said something and even after several individuals explained it to the white girl she was still dismissive of it as if it didn't affect her.

I can see how the ad is racist but OTOH if the parents are anything like me their initial thought probably wasn't that this is offensive. To me, initially, it isn't offensive but it's still a derogatory term for blacks and ultimately does a disservice. The parents could have asked for a different shirt but might not have bothered them, HM somehow didn't see anything wrong with it but that doesn't make it acceptable. It would be like having a white kid with a shirt depicting a cracker, or a black kid with a raccoon and the caption The Coolest Coon.

Personally, I don't find it knee jerk offensive but that doesn't mean it isn't to other people that have actually experienced systematic racism and prejudice or even know what it looks like. I get that there was money involved and that's okay but at the same time, to me, it would be similar to allowing a white person to call me a n***** and while I'm not offended and don't actually care what I'm called my behavior would inadvertently make that white person's behaviour seem acceptable.
I am just astonished at the whole thing! Very few nz people would recognise this as racist, because monkey simply doesn't have that connotation here. I think our basketball player Steven Adams said it in the US and was surprised to be labelled racist. But as soon as you know that someone finds it offensive you should stop using it, even if it seems illogical to you.
 





Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
1,370
Likes
1,840
I really think this has been blown out of porportion. H&M is swedens biggest store and there's nothing racist about them.
People are so sensitive and see what they want to see so they can fight over it. Ridiculess.
There are so many bad things going on to focus at then a kid wearing the "wrong" hoodie.