L'Oreal sack trans model for racism

[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...

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...=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-4114...it-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/wikiped...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

[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!