L'Oreal sack trans model for racism

[holzz]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/41127404/loreal-sacks-first-transgender-model-munroe-bergdorf

Apparently she made some racist remarks about the Nazi march.

[MrFanti]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/41127404/loreal-sacks-first-transgender-model-munroe-bergdorf

Apparently she made some racist remarks about the Nazi march.
From the article that you posted...


Munroe Bergdorf reportedly wrote "all white people" are racist in a Facebook post.......Shortly afterwards it's claimed the 29-year-old wrote online: "Honestly I don't have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people.
"Because most of ya'll don't even realise or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, blood and death of people of colour.
"Your entire existence is drenched in racism."

[holzz]

i consdier that racist. and i am not white. i don't believe in collective racial or cultural guilt, since the Romans gave us shit we use today, and they never enslaved any black people. does that make me a shill or "uncle tom" as americans say? no, it makes me a person who thinks mutual hatred gets us nowhere, and sins of people long dead should not translate to all people living alive.

she's angry, but then the people who sold her ancestors into slavery 200 years ago or whenever are just as responsible for racism today. but she wouldn't !acknowledge that would she?

[Stavros]

The full text of her explanation following the article in the Daily Mail (link at the end):

First up, let's put my words in context, as the Daily Mail failed to do so. This 'rant' was a direct response to the violence of WHITE SUPREMACISTS in Charlottesville. It was not written this week.

Secondly, identifying that the success of the British Empire has been at the expense of the people of colour, is not something that should offend ANYONE. It is a fact. It happened. Slavery and colonialism, at the hands of white supremacy, played a huge part in shaping the United Kingdom and much of the west, into the super power that it is today.
Whether aware of it or not, in today's society the lighter your skin tone (people of colour included) the more social privileges you will be afforded. Whether that's access to housing, healthcare, employment or credit. A person's race and skin tone has a HUGE part to play in how they are treated by society as a whole, based on their proximity to whiteness.
When I stated that "all white people are racist", I was addressing that fact that western society as a whole, is a SYSTEM rooted in white supremacy - designed to benefit, prioritise and protect white people before anyone of any other race. Unknowingly, white people are SOCIALISED to be racist from birth onwards. It is not something genetic. No one is born racist.
We also live in a society where men are SOCIALISED to be sexist. Women are SOCIALISED to be submissive. Gay people are SOCIALISED to be ashamed of their sexuality due to heterosexual people's homophobia. Cisgender people are SOCIALISED to be transphobic. We do not need to be this way. We are not born this way and we can learn to reject it. We are just socially conditioned to think this way from an early age. With the right education, empathy and open mindedness we can unlearn these socialisations and live a life where we don't oppress others and see things from other people's points of view.
So when a transgender woman of colour, who has been selected to front up a big brand campaign to combat discrimination and lack of diversity in the beauty industry, speaks on her actual lived experience of being discriminated against because of her race and identifies the root of where that discrimination lies - white supremacy and systemic racism - that big brand cannot simply state that her thoughts are not "in line with the ethics of the brand".
If you truly want equality and diversity, you need to actively work to dismantle the source of what created this discrimination and division in the first place. You cannot just simply cash in because you've realised there's a hole in the market and that there is money to be made from people of colour who have darker skin tones.
The irony of all this is that L'Oréal Paris invited me to be part of a beauty campaign that 'stands for diversity'. The fact that up until very recently, there has been next to no mainstream brands offering makeup for black women and ethnic minorities, is in itself due to racism within the industry. Most big brands did not want to sell to black women. Most big brands did not want to acknowledge that there was a HUGE demographic that was being ignored. Because they did not believe that there was MONEY to be made in selling beauty products to ethnic minorities.
If L'Oreal truly wants to offer empowerment to underrepresented women, then they need to acknowledge THE REASON why these women are underrepresented within the industry in the first place. This reason is discrimination - an action which punches down from a place of social privilege. We need to talk about why women of colour were and still are discriminated against within the industry, not just see them as a source of revenue.
Racism may be a jagged pill to swallow, but I suggest you force it down quickly if you want to be part of the solution. Doing nothing, does nothing and solves nothing. Empowerment and inclusivity are not trends, these are people's lives and experiences. If brands are going to use empowerment as a tool to push product to people of colour, then the least they can do is actually work us to dismantle the source, not throw us under the bus when it comes to the crunch. At times like this, it becomes blindly obvious what is genuine allyship and what is performative.
I stand for tolerance and acceptance - but neither can be achieved if we are unwilling to discuss WHY intolerance and hate exist in the first place.


https://en-gb.facebook.com/munroebergdorf/posts/1574703922551083

[Gillian]

I think they're well shot of her. A loose cannon, IMHO ...

[tacocorpv2]

So I'm racist now according to this deranged individual? I think she is stupid.

[GroobySteven]

since the Romans gave us shit we use today, and they never enslaved any black people. does that make me a shill or "uncle tom" as americans say?

Really?
No, it just makes you an incredibly ill-educated idiot - even more so for posting this.

[nitron]

Evolution...Africa, cradle of us all.

I can only respond with this ,,,I'm sorry...

https://twitter.com/LONG_DRIVE/status/871907460570914816

[filghy2]

i don't believe in collective racial or cultural guilt, since the Romans gave us shit we use today, and they never enslaved any black people.


Aside from this sentence not making any logical sense, I doubt it's historically accurate. It's well-known that the Romans took slaves from the regions they conquered. One of those regions was North Africa, and the original inhabitants (the Berbers) have darker-coloured skin.

For the record, I think that saying that "all white people are racist" is silly and doesn't help the anti-racism cause at all. If you are meaning to make a more nuanced point then why not choose your words more carefully? But it hardly makes her equivalent to the white supremacists in Charlottesville.

[Ben in LA]

Evolution...Africa, cradle of us all.

I can only respond with this ,,,I'm sorry...

https://twitter.com/LONG_DRIVE/status/871907460570914816
So what does THAT have to do with what she's talking about?

Also I can pull stories similar to that out of my ass to change the subject at hand, especially when the punishments were NOT equal (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/26/slap-on-the-wrist-white-classmate-avoids-jail-in-coat-hanger-assault-of-disabled-black-teen/).

[filghy2]

Evolution...Africa, cradle of us all.

I can only respond with this ,,,I'm sorry...

https://twitter.com/LONG_DRIVE/status/871907460570914816

Yes, there are scumbags among all races. What exactly is your point, and why is this relevant?

[nitron]

One ugly for another, hardly progress, like wild children running amuck.

[nitron]

Both lid to this.....

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=genocides+in+history&t=ffnt&iar=images&iax=1&ia=images

[Laphroaig]

the Romans gave us shit we use today, and they never enslaved any black people.

Sometimes I wonder if you actually believe the ignorant bullshit you come out with or just post for comedic effect?...:dead-1::dead-1::dead-1:

Even watching Spartacus or Gladiator, despite their historical inaccuracies, would have told you that statement is utter nonsense.

[Stavros]

I know, it really is scary, as scary as a Black man with a gun -Huey Newton- or a poem- Langston Hughes.

Munroe Bergdorf is Black, Transgendered, Intelligent, Clever and Articulate which is maybe why she was invited by L'Oreal to be part of a -get this- diversity project. But the project is all about the Brand and making money for the Brand, and nothing must upset the reputation of the Brand. Because they're worth it. But are you? Is she?

Hung Angels in its own way is also a Brand, not just on the commercial side, but in the solidarity we are asked to express for the women we love, without whom we would not be here. It is not asking us to admire everyone without complaint, we have preferences and tastes that diverge, but as a basic principle, Munroe is one of us, and worthy of respect; she has not robbed or lied, been nasty to children, or beaten someone up or murdered anyone. And we can respectfully challenge her views in detail, and I reckon she could give a good answer to any question.

Add Munroe Bergdorf to the list of women I would like to take to dinner.

[holzz]

Really?
No, it just makes you an incredibly ill-educated idiot - even more so for posting this.

the romans had slaves, certainly. but they never had racially-based slavery, like later Europeans did. unless you know some piece of Roman history/ancient-era history that most don't, it's not really me who is "an incredibly ill-educated idiot".

[holzz]

Sometimes I wonder if you actually believe the ignorant bullshit you come out with or just post for comedic effect?...:dead-1::dead-1::dead-1:

Even watching Spartacus or Gladiator, despite their historical inaccuracies, would have told you that statement is utter nonsense.

so you're saying the Romans went to Africa, enslaved blacks on ships, took them to plantations, and invented an entire ideology on how to treat them as sub-humans? no. many Roman slaves were Germanics, who were white, incidentally.

I think you both need to brush up on reading comprehension, since it's patently clear that is not what I was referring to...

[Laphroaig]

so you're saying the Romans went to Africa, enslaved blacks on ships, took them to plantations, and invented an entire ideology on how to treat them as sub-humans? no. many Roman slaves were Germanics, who were white, incidentally.

I think you both need to brush up on reading comprehension, since it's patently clear that is not what I was referring to...

Were you unaware that the Roman Empire extended to Africa? Romans brought back slaves from all parts of their empire, including Africa, so of course they had black slaves...:roll:

This is what you wrote.


the Romans gave us shit we use today, and they never enslaved any black people.

[GroobySteven]

the romans had slaves, certainly. but they never had racially-based slavery, like later Europeans did. unless you know some piece of Roman history/ancient-era history that most don't, it's not really me who is "an incredibly ill-educated idiot".

Yeah you are completely an idiot.
You've proved it once again.
Re-read what you wrote.

[filghy2]

the romans had slaves, certainly. but they never had racially-based slavery, like later Europeans did.

This may be true, but how is it relevant to Monroe Bergdorf's comments about the role of racial exploitation in Western development? Are you seriously suggesting that because the Romans contributed to Western development, and they did not practice systematic racism, then we can absolve ourselves and ignore anything that came later?

What is it with not using capitals at the start of sentences, by the way? Are you are trying to affect an ee cummings style? If so, you need to drop the punctuation as well.

[Laphroaig]

This may be true, but how is it relevant to Monroe Bergdorf's comments about the role of racial exploitation in Western development? Are you seriously suggesting that because the Romans contributed to Western development, and they did not practice systematic racism, then we can absolve ourselves and ignore anything that came later?

What is it with not using capitals at the start of sentences, by the way? Are you are trying to affect an ee cummings style? If so, you need to drop the punctuation as well.

It is indeed true that the Romans didn't discriminate on the basis of race. They happily enslaved people from all the nations they conquered, but generally speaking, whether black or white, slaves were then treated equally. However, that was not how holzz phrased it in his initial post. For someone who claims to be a "digital marketing director", a job that surely relies heavily on clear, precise and above all correct, communication, his grasp, use of the written word and ability to present a point, is truly appalling.

holzz, you have yet to answer Groobysteven's question on this thread. Another example of where you completely misunderstood the message being presented...:whistle:

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?104231-This-Is-Your-Brain-On-Sh%26%237865%3Bmale-P%26%237885%3Brn&p=1786243&viewfull=1#post1786243

[skirtrustler]

Almost certainly she had a clauses in her contract that said somethings like (1) shall always state 'opinions own' on any blog that can be linked back to her employer/client; and (2) shall not damage the brand value of the employer/client by external work or causing controversy etc. I assume also there were some 'moral conduct' clauses as well.

Clauses like 1 & 2 and business conduct and social media guidelines are quite common in professional services, let alone fragile brand based business. So, if she signs on the line then she keeps to her contract. If not then they fire her, and in such a way that they clearly separate her from their brand.

Her gamble is whether this publicity will enhance her career and personal brand value.

This is separate to whatever validity her 'own opinions' may or may not have.

[Stavros]

Almost certainly she had a clauses in her contract that said somethings like (1) shall always state 'opinions own' on any blog that can be linked back to her employer/client; and (2) shall not damage the brand value of the employer/client by external work or causing controversy etc. I assume also there were some 'moral conduct' clauses as well.
Clauses like 1 & 2 and business conduct and social media guidelines are quite common in professional services, let alone fragile brand based business. So, if she signs on the line then she keeps to her contract. If not then they fire her, and in such a way that they clearly separate her from their brand.
Her gamble is whether this publicity will enhance her career and personal brand value.
This is separate to whatever validity her 'own opinions' may or may not have.

You make valid points even if we don't know the precise conditions of her contract. I think the problem lies in the relationship between the Brand, so commercially important, and a campaign built around Diversity. I am not saying there is a contradiction between the two, but maybe L'Oreal did not think it through, though the events in Charlottesville appear to have been bad timing. Had the campaign taken place three months earlier and this may never have happened, and L'Oreal would be counting the financial benefits of their campaign, while congratulating themselves on their diversity appeal, even if it doesn't extend to the cosmetics on offer to Black people, something else Munroe has criticized the industry for.

[Stavros]

This may be true, but how is it relevant to Monroe Bergdorf's comments about the role of racial exploitation in Western development? Are you seriously suggesting that because the Romans contributed to Western development, and they did not practice systematic racism, then we can absolve ourselves and ignore anything that came later?


The link between the Roman Empire and American slavery exists in the transition Europeans made from Class to Race as a defining principle of social organization. Both Greece and Rome were shaped by Class, so that Slaves were contrasted to Freemen and Citizens with slaves being excluded from political power because they lacked Virtue and the intellectual excellence (Arete) the Greeks believed made a man capable of being a citizen. But it was possible for slaves to be freed and become citizens, and the Romans tended to acquire slaves through conquest and learn from them too -the Romans took plantation agriculture from Carthage (present day Tunisia) because it was more productive and efficient than the small-scale farming in Latium, but required slaves, as was true of mining.

When Race replaced Class as a defining principle, it was used to justify conquest by replacing man-made concepts taken from Greece and Rome, with the same concepts re-packaged as 'Nature', with the difference that whereas in Greece and Rome there was some flexibility in the movement between classes, with Race it is Nature that 'decides' and is thus so allegedly grounded in 'facts' that by definition an Apache or a West African cannot be equal to a white European, they can never be citizens because their 'race' makes this impossible. The Constitution of the USA thus did not apply to the Apache or the Slave because they were not defined at the time as citizens, one wonders if Washington and Jefferson even believed the Apache were human beings.

But this is a quite different way of talking about the citizen because by definition race denies the Black man the right to ever be one, just as the Jew can never be equal to an Aryan-but, as history has shown, the very same Virtue that enabled Christians to enslave other human beings, became the basis on which slavery was eventually abolished. Race at the very moment in the 19th century when it was growing in popularity, exhibited all the seeds of the terrible collapse it would face in 1945.

Put simply, it doesn't work in the long term precisely because it excludes productive members of society from its benefits, whereas capitalism requires producers to be consumers too -slavery made no economic sense as capitalism matured in the USA and became an obstacle to progress, as well as offensive to public decency. Bear in mind slaves were not imported just to pick cotton, cut sugar cane and drive cattle to market, they were expected to breed among themselves to maintain the slave population.

The question thus is how much has changed since the end of the abolition of slavery and the end of the Civil War and for Munroe and many others, there is a belief that is too often confirmed today in prejudice and violence, that race continues to shape the way people view their fellow citizens. The 'nationalist' or 'patriotic' agenda by attempting to link the present to the past of Washington and Jefferson, runs the risk of reviving a narrow view of the citizen that was based on race, rather than on a more flexible argument based on the contemporary definition of Rights, and the quality of the contribution non-White Americans have made to the development of the country. That America was made by White People is a fiction, that it was made for White people has been of temporary significance. It may have privileged White People over the first nations -that was achieved through violence; it may have enslaved the Black Africans purchased to work and breed, but ultimately it could not function without incorporating Black Americans into the country as equals, and whether or not this liberation has released White folks from the prison of prejudice is a most difficult and sensitive question, but until we are all free of prejudice, we remain prisoners of our own choosing and cannot be completely free, or value the freedom of all.

[Stavros]

Munroe interviewed on the Victoria Derbyshire programme this morning (not sure if this will stream outside the UK)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-41148872/sacked-model-all-white-people-benefit-from-racism

[jerseygirlangie]

I find it fascinating that people focus on the events in the US , 200 years ago, and turn a blind eye to what is happening in the present .


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Modern_incidence_of_slavery.png

https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/

[Stavros]

I find it fascinating that people focus on the events in the US , 200 years ago, and turn a blind eye to what is happening in the present .


I don't think that is a fair comment, as some of us try to understand the present in the context provided by the past, which in the case of the issues raised by this thread is unavoidable. And it doesn't diminish our concern with contemporary issues such as slavery or exploitation.

[TS jazmin]

I, myself am known to voice my strong, sometimes controversial opinion.
When I do make what could be considered quite a bold statement, I keep in mind that whilst some may agree with me... there will be those that feel just as strongly about disagreeing with me

When you're being questioned you need to have a strong, educated defence and you need to hold tight to your beliefs

She embarrassed herself in this mornings interview by second guessing, backtracking and tried to justify her statement with 'it was taken out of context'
No. It was very black and white IN black and white
A weak and quite silly justification for her words. I think that maybe she wanted to stir up a bit of controversy, perhaps to reach a broader audience and quite frankly when piers Morgan put her in her place... she responded like a rabbit in the headlights with no idea how to burrow out of the mess she had caused herself because it was clear that that was not a firm belief she holds close to her heart.

I feel sorry for her white mother, being labelled a racist by her own mixed race transgender daughter. A metaphorical slap in the face for all her acceptance and support through munroes transition. I know if it was me, my mother would have been deeply hurt by that.

Attacking an entire race is never going to be taken lightly.

Just imagine the backlash if somebody said 'all black people are...'

A publicity stunt gone wrong

[Gillian]

Attacking an entire race is never going to be taken lightly.

Just imagine the backlash if somebody said 'all black people are...'

A publicity stunt gone wrong
:iagree:

[MrFanti]

I, myself am known to voice my strong, sometimes controversial opinion.
When I do make what could be considered quite a bold statement, I keep in mind that whilst some may agree with me... there will be those that feel just as strongly about disagreeing with me

When you're being questioned you need to have a strong, educated defence and you need to hold tight to your beliefs

She embarrassed herself in this mornings interview by second guessing, backtracking and tried to justify her statement with 'it was taken out of context'
No. It was very black and white IN black and white
A weak and quite silly justification for her words. I think that maybe she wanted to stir up a bit of controversy, perhaps to reach a broader audience and quite frankly when piers Morgan put her in her place... she responded like a rabbit in the headlights with no idea how to burrow out of the mess she had caused herself because it was clear that that was not a firm belief she holds close to her heart.

I feel sorry for her white mother, being labelled a racist by her own mixed race transgender daughter. A metaphorical slap in the face for all her acceptance and support through munroes transition. I know if it was me, my mother would have been deeply hurt by that.

Attacking an entire race is never going to be taken lightly.

Just imagine the backlash if somebody said 'all black people are...'

A publicity stunt gone wrong

Well said!

[Wingman]

A couple of weeks ago, Mr Trump was pilloried for not condemning white supremacists ("blame on both sides"). He kept his job.

This week, Ms Bergdorf was pilloried for blanket-condemning white men. She lost her job. (She'll get another one in no time at all with her profile and sass!)

While I have no wish to further her unfounded, non-evidence based, emotional, unfathomable argument... it's kind of interesting how those two worked out.

[Stavros]

I, myself am known to voice my strong, sometimes controversial opinion.
When I do make what could be considered quite a bold statement, I keep in mind that whilst some may agree with me... there will be those that feel just as strongly about disagreeing with me
When you're being questioned you need to have a strong, educated defence and you need to hold tight to your beliefs
She embarrassed herself in this mornings interview by second guessing, backtracking and tried to justify her statement with 'it was taken out of context'
No. It was very black and white IN black and white
A weak and quite silly justification for her words. I think that maybe she wanted to stir up a bit of controversy, perhaps to reach a broader audience and quite frankly when piers Morgan put her in her place... she responded like a rabbit in the headlights with no idea how to burrow out of the mess she had caused herself because it was clear that that was not a firm belief she holds close to her heart.
I feel sorry for her white mother, being labelled a racist by her own mixed race transgender daughter. A metaphorical slap in the face for all her acceptance and support through munroes transition. I know if it was me, my mother would have been deeply hurt by that.
Attacking an entire race is never going to be taken lightly.
Just imagine the backlash if somebody said 'all black people are...'
A publicity stunt gone wrong

I do not agree with the points you have made. Munroe was articulate in her interview with Victoria Derbyshire -a more sympathetic person than Morgan- and I only saw a clip of Morgan opting for his usual 'I am outraged' pose which doesn't fool anyone.

The key point Munroe has been making is that racism is embedded in the history of empire in Europe and in the history of America since Jamestown, and I don't know how anyone can dispute this when the facts exist independent of anyone's interpretation of them. The deeper point, that the long-term impact of racism is expressed in (often casual), day-today prejudice to the extent that white people may not even realise they are repeating it is also important, and while it doesn't mean that every white person by definition is a racist, it does go some way to explaining, not just the Supremacists at Charlottesville and their flags, chants and violence, but as importantly the reactions to Charlottesville. The original Facebook text that Munroe posted was taken down by Facebook (but not the abusive comments attached to it) and has not yet re-surfaced, but Munroe's explanations of her position have been eloquent and sensible, even if not everyone agrees with her views.

It is not a matter of personal mistake, disgrace, or feeling sorry for people who read the Daily Mail that matters, it is the questions that Munroe asks, and what their answers might be. And they do not produce comforting thought.

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/sep/04/munroe-bergdorf-on-the-loreal-racism-row-it-puzzles-me-that-my-views-are-considered-extreme

[tacocorpv2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc-p7Ghje3Y

Just saw this earlier..

[dreamon]

I can understand that she is upset at the rise of white supremacy in the Western World, but statements like this are not going to help. There are many white people that are allies in the fight against racism, and her statement would only serve to create more division. To truly end racism, we need people of all backgrounds to rally together and hash out our differences. I hope she considers what she said and why people are upset by it.

[filghy2]

I think what she is really trying to say is that white people gain advantages from the lucky accident of being born white, and unless they support action to address the disadvantages of non-whites they are effectively condoning this situation. I agree that characterising this as "all white people are racist" shows poor judgement and does not help the cause. It is also true that many of the people criticising her are engaging in selective indignation and have ulterior motives, but then why play into their hands?

[TS jazmin]

I do not agree with the points you have made. Munroe was articulate in her interview with Victoria Derbyshire -a more sympathetic person than Morgan- and I only saw a clip of Morgan opting for his usual 'I am outraged' pose which doesn't fool anyone.

The key point Munroe has been making is that racism is embedded in the history of empire in Europe and in the history of America since Jamestown, and I don't know how anyone can dispute this when the facts exist independent of anyone's interpretation of them. The deeper point, that the long-term impact of racism is expressed in (often casual), day-today prejudice to the extent that white people may not even realise they are repeating it is also important, and while it doesn't mean that every white person by definition is a racist, it does go some way to explaining, not just the Supremacists at Charlottesville and their flags, chants and violence, but as importantly the reactions to Charlottesville. The original Facebook text that Munroe posted was taken down by Facebook (but not the abusive comments attached to it) and has not yet re-surfaced, but Munroe's explanations of her position have been eloquent and sensible, even if not everyone agrees with her views.

It is not a matter of personal mistake, disgrace, or feeling sorry for people who read the Daily Mail that matters, it is the questions that Munroe asks, and what their answers might be. And they do not produce comforting thought.

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/sep/04/munroe-bergdorf-on-the-loreal-racism-row-it-puzzles-me-that-my-views-are-considered-extreme

Yes, after the Piers Morgan interview I imagine she sat down and gave some thought to what she might say should similar questions be asked again.
I suggest you watch the Piers Morgan interview in its entirety. Whilst his approach may be a little strong, he asks the questions that need to be asked.
He also calls BS when he hears it

The clip tacocorpv2 posted shows this perfectly.

Not one person is disputing that racism still exists to this day but when a black person goes around stating that all 'white straight males are racist sexist homophones' then they can't expect to be taken seriously when asking for equality.

Racism, stereotyping, sexism- these are sensitive issues. Aproaching them brute force and slander isn't going to encourage change!

[OrderMore]

I can understand some of the backlash from her statement, because I can see people getting upset with it. Personally I saw nothing wrong with she said. Racism is a systemic practice in this country. Failures to acknowledge the advantages and privileges that are given to you while others are being oppressed, and expression their displeasure would make you put you in that unattractive category as prejudice and racist. To be fair some people genuinely do not realized that they are privileged. That's why one of the hardest and most courageous thing that individual can do is acknowledge it. Like I said racism is systemic so if you are just looking for overt racist practice the covert goes right over your head.

I personally do not agree with racism, stereotyping, and sexism as sensitive topics. People are being affected every second of the day by it. I do not think we should have to cater to the bigots and tip toe around the topic. I never understood why we have to constantly have be politically correct while our lives are being affected daily. I am not saying fight it with violence but call it how it is. Do not beat around the bush.

To stay on topic I do not think she should have be fired. To be fair every person of color and individuals who identify with other communities such as LGBTQIA has been affected. When speaking on topics that directly effect our lives you can not expect us to speak about emotionless.

[MrFanti]

Yes, after the Piers Morgan interview I imagine she sat down and gave some thought to what she might say should similar questions be asked again.
I suggest you watch the Piers Morgan interview in its entirety. Whilst his approach may be a little strong, he asks the questions that need to be asked.
He also calls BS when he hears it

The clip tacocorpv2 posted shows this perfectly.

Not one person is disputing that racism still exists to this day but when a black person goes around stating that all 'white straight males are racist sexist homophones' then they can't expect to be taken seriously when asking for equality.

Racism, stereotyping, sexism- these are sensitive issues. Aproaching them brute force and slander isn't going to encourage change!

I'm Black, but once again, I'll say "well said"!

[LongTom101]

i consdier that racist. and i am not white. i don't believe in collective racial or cultural guilt, since the Romans gave us shit we use today, and they never enslaved any black people. does that make me a shill or "uncle tom" as americans say? no, it makes me a person who thinks mutual hatred gets us nowhere, and sins of people long dead should not translate to all people living alive.

she's angry, but then the people who sold her ancestors into slavery 200 years ago or whenever are just as responsible for racism today. but she wouldn't !acknowledge that would she?

You're embarrassingly uninformed if you seriously think that The Romans didn't enslave any black people

[retroboy]

Munroe just does not get why people have a problem with it.

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/sep/04/munroe-bergdorf-on-the-loreal-racism-row-it-puzzles-me-that-my-views-are-considered-extreme

[retroboy]

Munroe is just racist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw-awlWBCP0

[retroboy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXgYNo624-I&t=349s

[Stavros]

Congratulations to Munroe Bergdorf for being appointed adviser to the Labour Party's LGBT+ Advisory Group where she will work wth Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, Dawn Butler.

"Thrilled to announce that I've been asked to be part of an LGBT+ advisory board for The Labour Party - To advise Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, Dawn Butler MP, on issues affecting the LGBT+ community, to help form and push through fairer and more effective policy change."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-43211136

I am not a Labour voter, but I applaud the party's determination to recruit people from diverse backgrounds and sexual orientation in its preparations for government, whenever, or if ever that might be.

[Ben in LA]

Yup...she’s doing just fine. And looking fine as well.

1061636

1061637

1061638

1061639

[slave2u]

Congratulations to Munroe Bergdorf for being appointed adviser to the Labour Party's LGBT+ Advisory Group where she will work wth Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, Dawn Butler.

"Thrilled to announce that I've been asked to be part of an LGBT+ advisory board for The Labour Party - To advise Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, Dawn Butler MP, on issues affecting the LGBT+ community, to help form and push through fairer and more effective policy change."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-43211136

I am not a Labour voter, but I applaud the party's determination to recruit people from diverse backgrounds and sexual orientation in its preparations for government, whenever, or if ever that might be.

except that judging by some of her statements - she isn't unlike many of the bigots she opposes.

[Yepyepp]

All jest aside; I make a lot of jest, it's not in snyones immediate Interests to give due consideration to her points. On the flip side, she is quite bang on - remember interventions arent cosy affairs... judging by recent socio-politicsl tangents, a certain laissez-faire approach to the realities of the colonised and subjugated is being normalised ad infinitum. Just because she makes yoi uncomfortable, doesnt make her a liar. We're all part and parcel of a certain legacy, and its pulse is as steady as ever... HA is actually quite an adequate microcosm of the wider world 💯🙊👌

[Akashia]

You're embarrassingly uninformed if you seriously think that The Romans didn't enslave any black people

but weren't the romans enslaved or murdered by the Persian empire? and didn't the Persians enslave any race they took over?

[bruce_willy]

As far as I'm concerned, people can take that word 'racist' and shove it up their ass.

[Stavros]

except that judging by some of her statements - she isn't unlike many of the bigots she opposes.

I don't know that Munroe is a bigot, or if she should be judged by one comment taken out of context, but it does appear that she is being attacked, when attacked, for not being perfect. That she is as human as you or I makes it inevitable that she will make mistakes, but is it not a curious thing that while some people can make multiple mistakes and yet continue in public office, others just get the one chance, and if it happens they are from an ethnic minority, or female, or transgendered one chance is all they will get.

Gary Yonge has written a perceptive article comparing the career of Boris Johnson to any Black woman attempting to emulate his career path, pointing out that whereas Johnson has made numerous sexist and racist comments he has always been 'forgiven' just as he was sacked from The Times for printing lies about the EU and then went to the Telegraph which has never employed a black person of any gender to write their leader column. Asked a few days ago to account for the £40 million plus wasted on the Garden Bridge across the Thames when Mayor of London, he shrugged his shoulders as if it was just not important. Thus

If Johnson were a black woman, he’d have to be totally beyond reproach or he’d long since be finished
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/02/boris-johnson-white-privilege-black-woman

Maybe Munroe should be given a chance to prove she can be an effective voice for the LGVT+ people she is asked to represent.

[slave2u]

I don't know that Munroe is a bigot, or if she should be judged by one comment taken out of context, but it does appear that she is being attacked, when attacked, for not being perfect. That she is as human as you or I makes it inevitable that she will make mistakes, but is it not a curious thing that while some people can make multiple mistakes and yet continue in public office, others just get the one chance, and if it happens they are from an ethnic minority, or female, or transgendered one chance is all they will get.

Gary Yonge has written a perceptive article comparing the career of Boris Johnson to any Black woman attempting to emulate his career path, pointing out that whereas Johnson has made numerous sexist and racist comments he has always been 'forgiven' just as he was sacked from The Times for printing lies about the EU and then went to the Telegraph which has never employed a black person of any gender to write their leader column. Asked a few days ago to account for the £40 million plus wasted on the Garden Bridge across the Thames when Mayor of London, he shrugged his shoulders as if it was just not important. Thus

If Johnson were a black woman, he’d have to be totally beyond reproach or he’d long since be finished
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/02/boris-johnson-white-privilege-black-woman

Maybe Munroe should be given a chance to prove she can be an effective voice for the LGVT+ people she is asked to represent.

i have never understood the arguement that says because person a said something wrong, person b gets a free pass to say something just as wrong. does that mean that person c also gets to say something just as wrong?

some of the attacks on her prove munroe's point.
but equally some have argued that it is a bit odd to criticise hate speech/thought by using hate speech.
not all whites are racist.
equally not all BAME's are blameless when it comes exercising racism of their own. (the unspoken aspect of racism).

that munroe can make her bold statements is a good thing, and long may she continue to do so. however i am not sure such a voice is one that can work allied to an establishment party.
and can someone who seems to not be too keen on certain sections of society really help the lgbt+ community given that a great many of them come from those sections.

[Yepyepp]

Why doesnt society teach true empathy, you guys have no idea how demeaning you all collectively make this - direct and ugly insults are so much more painless than the apathetic and concession makers... nobody has replaced the humanity that was stolen, the idea of racial hierarchy is so ingrained in this society, thag everyone BAME has to suffer indignity daily 😄 even with the parades of broken black holocaust survivors in white women wigs, and songs a plenty by black artists about the commitment to perpetuating the self loathing thats part of a traumatised legacy... you still dont get it... im not saying you're all racist... im saying BAME people are seriously non-engaging these dialogues by and large, because the cognitive dissonance is tiring...

[Stavros]

i have never understood the arguement that says because person a said something wrong, person b gets a free pass to say something just as wrong. does that mean that person c also gets to say something just as wrong?


That is not the point I was trying to make, which is that some people say outrageous things in public and remain in their job while others only get the one chance. In other words, why do some people get a 'free pass' and others are shown the exit? And is there a link between 'race', gender and opportunity, between reward and punishment?

[slave2u]

That is not the point I was trying to make, which is that some people say outrageous things in public and remain in their job while others only get the one chance. In other words, why do some people get a 'free pass' and others are shown the exit? And is there a link between 'race', gender and opportunity, between reward and punishment?

simple answer is i am not sure.
boris seems to be a case apart from anyone - i suspect it is mostly to do with the idea he is better kept in the fold than blundering around in the wild.

mostly i suspect that it is a revolving door of "give it a little time and we'll have you back, doing something else".
however now with people making arses of themselve on social media and people being able to trawl through what they have said and get an 'i am offended' campaign going it is going to be harder for less established people to keep roles. look at toby young.
and harder for them to come back.

whether this is a good thing or not is a difficult question. should people be held responsible for a comment made several years ago (l'oreal's recent muslim hair model) or should we be more interested in their recent actions/words? have they changed?
it does seem that with social media - if you say one thing, even obviously in jest to a mate (some of the things munroe has been slated for are to and about pals) that one thing is enough, everything else is discounted. because far from allowing us to look at issues in all their complexity we are forced to deal in impossible absolutes.

so in the social media age perhaps your initial question needs to be restated to take into account internet 'moral outrage'.

[Stavros]

Munroe has now quite her unpaid post with the Labour Party following relentless harassment by Daily Mail and other so-called 'newspapers'.

"This is a decision that I've had to make due to endless attacks on my character by the conservative right wing press and relentless online abuse. I refuse to be painted as a villain or used as a pawn in the press' efforts, especially those at The Daily Mail, to discredit the Labour Party and push their transphobic rightist agendas.

​"I wanted my appointment to be something positive and exciting for the community, but instead it has turned into nasty tabloid fodder, blown out of all proportion."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/munroe-bergdorf-labour-lgbt-party-loreal-model-trans-resign-corbyn-edited-a8241746.html