The old South African Flag

@TN, it does matter. It shows them that their prejudices are highly visible, and won't be tolerated. The thing is once you get desensitized to the little things, you will eventually get desensitized to the bigger things....."lest we forget"...

Lionel wrote:

TNaicker wrote:

Lionel wrote:

TNaicker wrote:

Lionel wrote:

TNaicker wrote: @Lionel...if the abused/exploited/wronged person/s do not see it as such, what gives anyone else the right to be outraged on their behalf ?

If a wrong is done to you, only you have the right to respond...not have others use it as a cause for their protest...

Maybe I see the world different from how you do...and that should be our respective and respected choices...

Everything, if their choices has consequences on others. Unfortunately, we don't live in a bubble TN, and our actions and choices has impact on those around us.

So, is it fair to assume you would do absolutely nothing if you see an injustice being carried out?

If the parent/s of the child have not spoken up or taken any action, it is not for me to be outraged on their behalf - if you want to, that is your choice and no reflection on me...

You don't get it....it's not about them or the child...it's what it symbolizes to everyone. Anyway, some people enjoy the "hear no evil, see no evil kind of life" I suppose.

BTW, as per my previous posts, I don't support the trashing of the stores either.

Maybe I don't get what you want to see in any and every instance as it gives a reason for venting - I hear and see the evil all around us every day but being outraged at every instance is going to age us all quicker than we want or need to - and with a young daughter, i want to be around for as long as I can for her...

And, out of curiosity, where has the outrage gotten those that are outraged ? An advert removed, an apology, less future use of any black kid in an advert for fear of offending sensibilities, a trashed store...Will it result in those that have ingrained prejudices being transformed away from the racist utterances and actions ? I personally don't think it will and yet we all lose something of ourselves when we react in the way in which many have...

@TN, there is a huge difference between standing up for what's right and venting/outrage etc as you put it. Trust me, I am seldomly driven to fits of outrage

Also, I don't look at everything through a magnifying glass, but neither am I blind enough not to see gross injustices.

Glad for you and your daughter. Thankfully, leaders like Gandhi, MLK, Mandela etc didn't have that problem hey.

These protests will hopefully one day totally eradicate all subtle forms of stereotyping/prejudice etc from the public domain.

@Lionel - there will not ever be a total eradication of prejudice in its subtle and overt forms...and do not assume that prejudice flows in one direction...

And those leaders that you mention made their choices just as surely as you will make yours and I will make mine as to what we prioritise in our lives - no-one forced them into the choices they made...

TN, maybe so, but never stop the quest for utopia. Prejudice does flow in many directions, and we must stand up against all of it.

TN, no-one is forcing you to do anything. You entered into this conversation of your own free will.

pirates wrote: the parents of the kid have made a statement maybe someone can post it

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-52705...child-speak-out.html

ewn.co.za/2018/01/14/mother-of-boy-in-h-...d-faces-racial-abuse

The power of not keeping quite:

Here's the timeline of how Nike became a global symbol of abusive labor practices (I'm sure these parents didn't object either), then managed to turn things around:

After prices rose and labor organized in Korea and Taiwan, Nike begins to urge contractors to move to Indonesia, China, and Vietnam.
1991: Problems start in 1991 when activist Jeff Ballinger publishes a report documenting low wages and poor working conditions in Indonesia.
Nike first formally responds to complaints with a factory code of conduct.
1992: Ballinger publishes an exposé of Nike. His Harper's article highlights an Indonesian worker who worked for a Nike subcontractor for 14 cents an hour, less than Indonesia's minimum wage, and documented other abuses.
1992-1993: Protests at the Barcelona Olympics in 1992, CBS' 1993 interview of Nike factory workers, and Ballinger's NGO "Press For Change" provokes a wave of mainstream media attention.
1996: Kathy Lee Gifford's clothing line is shown to be made by children in poor labor conditions. Her teary apology and activism makes it a national issue.
1996: Nike establishes a department tasked with working to improve the lives of factory laborers.
1997: Efforts at promotion become occasions for public outrage. The company expands its "Niketown" retail stores, only to see increasing protests. Sports media begin challenging spokespeople like Michael Jordan.
Abuses continue to emerge, like a report that alleging that a Vietnamese sub-contractor ran women outside until they collapsed for failing to wear regulation shoes.
Nike tasks diplomat and activist Andrew Young with examining its labor practices abroad. His report is criticized for being soft on Nike. Critics object to the fact that he didn't address low wages, used Nike interpreters to translate, and was accompanied by Nike officials on factory visits. Since Young's report was largely favorable, Nike is quick to publicize it, which increases backlash.
1997: College students around the country began protesting the company.
1998: Nike faces weak demand and unrelenting criticism. It has to lay off workers, and begins to realize it needs to change.
The real shift begins with a May 1998 speech by then-CEO Phil Knight. “The Nike product has become synonymous with slave wages, forced overtime, and arbitrary abuse,” Knight said. “I truly believe the American consumer doesn’t want to buy products made under abusive conditions.”
At that speech, he announces Nike will raise the minimum age of workers; significantly increase monitoring; and will adapt U.S. OSHA clean air standards in all factories.
1999: Nike begins creating the Fair Labor Association, a non-profit group that combines companies, and human rights and labor representatives to establish independent monitoring and a code of conduct, including a minimum age and a 60-hour work week, and pushes other brands to join.
2002-2004: The company performs some 600 factory audits between 2002 and 2004, including repeat visits to problematic factories.
2004: Human rights activists acknowledge that increased monitoring efforts at least deal with some of the worst problems, like locked factory doors and unsafe chemicals, but issues still remain.
2005: Nike becomes the first in its industry to publish a complete list of the factories it contracts with.
2005: Nike publishes a detailed 108-page report revealing conditions and pay in its factories and acknowledging widespread issues, particularly in its south Asian factories.
2005-Present: The company continues to post its commitments, standards, and audit data as part of its corporate social responsibility reports.

TNaicker wrote:

pirates wrote: the parents of the kid have made a statement maybe someone can post it

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-52705...child-speak-out.html

ewn.co.za/2018/01/14/mother-of-boy-in-h-...d-faces-racial-abuse

in a hurry to appease you forgot your first post lol

you right there is no racism around.............................

I think we all agree,it was a major blunder by someone..I wouldn't like my son in a "honky" tshirt or a Arsenal shirt..The store realised they messed up and apologised,you except that apology or you don't.Stop shopping at that store if it makes you feel better.
But know,the fuckwits who look like they could be led over a cliff have to resort to violence and thuggery.

=

TNaicker wrote: Forgive my ignorance...did the child in the H&M picture appear without the consent and knowledge of the parent/s, who were likely paid for the advertisement ? I have not seen any comment / action from them but there is a fair amount of outrage from persons that have taken offence at the perception of racism...

I'm confused...seems like protesters in search of a cause / struggle...

TN, if this was your child, would you have consented?

mydada wrote:

TNaicker wrote:

pirates wrote: the parents of the kid have made a statement maybe someone can post it

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-52705...child-speak-out.html

ewn.co.za/2018/01/14/mother-of-boy-in-h-...d-faces-racial-abuse

in a hurry to appease you forgot your first post lol

you right there is no racism around.............................

@mydada...appeasing no-one - just trying to apply logic and reason rather than emotion...hadn't seen any response from parent/s until post by @pirates informing that parents had made a statement so I then did search and attached links...

bayern wrote:

TNaicker wrote: Forgive my ignorance...did the child in the H&M picture appear without the consent and knowledge of the parent/s, who were likely paid for the advertisement ? I have not seen any comment / action from them but there is a fair amount of outrage from persons that have taken offence at the perception of racism...

I'm confused...seems like protesters in search of a cause / struggle...

TN, if this was your child, would you have consented?

@bayern - wouldn't put my child in position where this would be an issue that can result in reaction by those outside of those immediately affected - those parents did and find little wrong so who am I to judge...and from the reports read it seems that abuse has been directed at the mother because she doesn't share the views of those that have taken offence

Maybe those parents are more interested in the their child's modelling career (money) Wouldn't be the first time a parent "pimps" out their child.

Anyway, I see the Ahmed Kathrada foundation has also entered the fray and taking H&M to task over this....apparently this isn't H&M's first such indiscretion :ohmy: