When HM’s ‘monkeygate’ first kicked off, we was only softly amused by it – in that I’m so used to seeing brands making foolish and racially unresponsive selling choices that I’m somewhat defence to it now.
I don’t consider HM is racist, we do however consider that HM is run by white people and so that payoff will colour and change all they do.
Sometimes they’ll get it right and infrequently they’ll fail, spectacularly.
I consider it’s right and only satisfactory that when they do, people are allowed to demonstrate their outrage and HM, accordingly, is allowed to redress it.
Which is accurately what happened with their arising of a open reparation and the withdrawal of the picture and jumper (though we do consider stealing the jumper itself was unnecessary).
What I’m not so amused by, however, is the tide of explanation from people propitious adequate not to find the picture offensive.
Even going a step serve and labelling the people who do as extremist since ‘it’s just a child in a jumper’ or children get called ‘cheeky monkey’ all the time.
Actually, it’s not just a child in a jumper – it’s a black child in the jumper and that changes everything, yet we really wish it didn’t.
Firstly, the jumper doesn’t contend ‘cheeky monkey’, it says ‘coolest gorilla in the jungle’.
In fact, there is another identical jumper featuring a white child that says ‘mangrove jungle presence consultant – central debate guide’.
So the black child gets to wear the HM sweater with “Coolest gorilla in the jungle” and the white child with “Survival expert”. This is over disgusting. It’s a projection of your neocolonial thinking. You won’t see me anywhere nearby your shops these days @hm. pic.twitter.com/Gl7OtdVw4p
— Volkan 🔥 (@vulkaanrots) Jan 8, 2018
Why wasn’t the black child modelling both or clamp versa?
Secondly, the word gorilla is a very loaded word when used in and with black people.
It’s historically used as a secular slur, and even in complicated times, almost always used in a derogative way.
If not, since are football hooligans so very lustful of using it to abuse black footballers and since was an picture of Michelle Obama vandalised to make her resemble a monkey?
Sitting in a position of privilege, which allows you not to see the picture as offensive, doesn’t meant that it’s not.
If you or your ancestors have never had your membership label to the human race revoked on the grounds of being sub-human or ape-like just so you could be sole as chattel, then you don’t get to tell those who have what is and isn’t offensive.
You also don’t get to tell me I’m extremist since we find the picture problematic.
Acting as if the picture is a non-issue is an try at revisionist story and another instance of the whitesplaining of black people’s experiences.
I am sick to death of people who have not and can't walk in my boots revelation me how we should feel about things.
It all goes back to payoff and that often, those who enjoy it occasionally realize they do.
So the next time a white people-run company releases or says something that offends a whole garland of black people (and they will), instead of presumption that they’re overreacting since you privately aren’t offended, find a black person who is and have a review about it.
You’ll substantially both learn something new.