L'Oreal sack first transgender model for racism
- Thread starter 2 man midfield
- Start date
- Status
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ely-to-be-jailed-for-some-crimes-report-finds
The fact that despite the likelihood of them being working class but being black puts you at a further disadvantage only highlights that this isn't down to classism
So what it really comes down to is white people making better choices than black people?
You are trying to hard to over-simplify it by imagining still that we are talking about ONE singular black person or ONE singular white person. We are talking about a social phenomenon on a global scale.
Of course every individual has a choice, but more whites 'appear' to make better choices than black's, if choice is all it is - so what is it then about being white that apparently makes you better at making these choices? Or is it more likely that there are other hugely complex social factors in-play? Because the problem is, if you do blame black choices, you start to sound a little racist!
Just to clarify - I am not accusing anyone of being racist, just saying that is the thorny issue with denying white privilege in the face of all the evidence
I apply the same principles to who I play on the field and who I put on the wrestling mat. It is why I love coaching - you are played because of your merits.
Exactly my point! See my post above - you did it much more succinctly at exactly the same time!
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/pursuing-the-american-dream
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-schanes/homelessness-myth-15-boot_b_749747.html
This 'pulling yourself up by the bootstrap' idea is a myth - can you find any evidence of social or economic mobility that isn't skewed heavily in the favour of white people? Or are white people the only ones who make good personal choices throughout history? Except for Beyonce of course.
You choose to believe systemic and institutionalised racism doesn't exist because you aren't on the receiving end of it.
Trying to tell people who are victims of this that all they needed to do was make better personal choices is wholly ignorant.
My problem essentially is that if we want to have a legit conversation and discussion about this, there are probably millions of people who have come out with more educated and decent starting positions from which to start that conversation from. She may well have some decent points that could be discussed and analysed but unfortunatly it's whisked in with random shite like "Your entire existence is drenched in racism."
That's not really true. Colonies as a whole were unprofitable (especially the entirety of Africa which was a huge drain on the European powers). Sure, some colonies like India, The Thirteen colonies, the Carribeans were extremely profitable, but as a whole Europe colonized for 3 reasons:
1. Establishing and controlling trade routes
2. Prestige
3. Legitimacy.
The African colonies didn't provide anything of note to the Europeans and the continent certainly wasn't drained at all. In fact the Berlin West African Conference were just Europeans drawing maps of regions they did not know, dividing it between themselves. Why? Because it was the belief that Europeans should rule over non-Europeans, regardless. Europe didn't get much of Africa, it was Africa that developed much faster because of European colonialism.
Who are these "theories" that paint Europe as having gained its wealth from Africa or other colonies? Europe was immensely rich before the colonization period even began with nations like France, the Byzantine Empire and Austria rivaling China in economic size despite their landmass.
This is scarily well put. So the essence of your post is that if anything, Africa benefitted from Western imperialism to the detriment of Europeans?
It also came at the cost of its own people. Workhouses were a thing in Britain well into Victorian times, which fecked you regardless of your race. Pretty much every country within history that has gone through industralisation has had a period where their workers got treated appalingly. China is no exception. Africa is really struggling to get through initial industralisation, even considering $135bil in foreign aid was given in 2014 alone.
As I said before, it's a cultural thing rather than a racial thing. I don't think the colour of your skin is as important as where you grow up, who you grow up with, etc. Obviously it doesn't all come down to personal choice, but you yourself as an adult have the power to change your situation if you wish. As for me reducing it down to a singular level, I'd dispute that. On a singular level, of course there are people who are prejudiced against black people, I don't however believe the system itself is.
Well there's this, for starters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income
It has nothing to do with your skin colour, and everything to do with your choices and culture. For example:
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2012-01-27/story/three-rules-staying-out-poverty
Now consider that 72% of African-American births are out of wedlock.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...on-lemon-says-more-72-percent-african-americ/
Asians in America on the other hand, have just 17% of babies born out of wedlock. Is it a coincidence, is it white privilege, or is it just people's choices having repercussions?
Look, I'll extend an olive branch here. I can understand people who believe white privilege to be a thing on the basis that white culture is mainstream. If you open a magazine or go into a shop you're going to see white people more widely represented. But at the end of the day white people are still the majority, it would be the same in countries where blacks are the majority and whites are the minority. I just don't think skin colour is 100% to blame for where people end up in life, and blaming systemic racism is just another way to absolve people of responsibility for their own poor choices.
Interestingly you are also more likely to be jailed for the same crime and be sentenced for longer and do more of that time in jail if you are a man than if you are a woman.
Not sure if trolling. It wasn't seen as a "detriment" to Europe, Europe was civilizing "savages" in their mind. By the time Europe colonized Africa money wasn't an issue to them because Europe had direct control over every trade route in the world and losing a few quids didn't matter to them. So in a sense - yes, Africa benefited from colonialism much more than Europe did because of the introduction of modern day medicine, infrastructure, governing system - basically getting them out of the stone age. If it wasn't for colonialism, it's highly likely that Africa would be a bunch of primitive tribes right now that never saw an outside face.
Was hoping to avoid posting in this thread but couldn't resist.
This is bullshit.
Savages whose continental heritage consisted of things like the first archeologically verifiable civilization, the first university, the birthplace of the sciences to where some of the great Ancient Greek intellectuals sought learning? Are we talking about the same Africa?
All of this, from what I can surmise thus far, is historically inaccurate. I'll come back to you with references.
You realize that @Dumat12 isn't actually calling them savages, right?
Ok
This thread has taken a serious downturn. It can go to 100 pages and the topic is complex, think the most important things have been said. It can only go downhill from here.
@Redlambs i agree with you on most things, hard to do more, even if reading through here you get the feeling it is all very personal and the fault lies with everyone somehow, think if everyone does his best, the time and society will slowly improve things in the right direction.
@Redlambs i agree with you on most things, hard to do more, even if reading through here you get the feeling it is all very personal and the fault lies with everyone somehow, think if everyone does his best, the time and society will slowly improve things in the right direction.
'Having a full time job' - not that I disagree, but surely actually not being discriminated against during the job process is crucial right?
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873
I would also suggest you read 'The New Jim Crow' or maybe watch the '13th' Documentary on netflix, but I just remembered you don't think systemic & institutionalised racism doesn't exist, neither does white privilege. It doesn't exist to you because you don't have to live that life.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-institutional-racism-is-real
Exactly what culture was a part of only building low-income housing in black neighbourhoods? Or defunding schools in black neighbourhoods - which leave the kids without the skills to compete with the kids in neighbourhoods who's schools got adequate funding & education?
http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions of Racism.pdf
Black people didn't even have the same rights as white people as recently as 60 years ago, but yeah we're all just victims of our bad decisions
You're focusing on Egypt while I'm talking about the descendants of Subsharan Africa from whose much of the criticism against the European powers stems from. While Egypt was certainly an ancient civilization worthy of praise by the time of the XIX century they were extremely far behind from the European powers and were considered "uncivilized". And what "first university" are you talking about? As far as I know the university of Bologna is in Europe, not in Africa.
Please do.
This story is about what? Someone getting sacked? Well, you don't have to be a transgender to get sacked. I agree with the ******? I wouldn't know. I won't be afraid to be critical of anyone and since all we have is hearsay, so maybe he got sacked to promote racism. The reality is that if he got sacked due to racism - why is it important we know he is a ******? It's not? So people should kick away what silly pedistool these nitwits stand on and get a real job. Oh and boycott the media. I'm not going to take serious an article that would subliminally get me to know what they are up to. I dislike the media and to be honest people in fashion. Bunch of look at me look at me without anything to say. This is about putting a ****** in a place where you feel empathy or in agreement. It has nothing to do with him being sacked. In all probability.
I agree with her being sacked in the sense that it's the only thing they could do as a multinational company to appease their many customers for whom some will construe her comments as offensive whether racist or not, because it's not their job to delve into the the semantics or the veracity of what she said, it their job to protect the bottom line.
Also because it's probably what she wanted to bring attention to her feelings and to implore other like-minded people to make the same decision to speak out about something larger than themselves or the importance of their lifestyle.
In an ideal world, in my opinion somebody making these points shouldn't face disciplinary action but in an ideal world she would need to say what she said.
I don't think racist people should lose their jobs purely because they said something racist because this general policy hasn't had and obviously never could have the effect of actually doing anything about racism, all it means is it's harder to detect who feels exactly what way and so you have the culture where it's thought and never sayable explicitly resulting in things like Trump becoming president.
Wowzer, what a post
I know lol but there's always an agenda and I don't think they're trying to say that there was racism in regards to being transgender - rather their colour. The media spin is disgusting. The fact is the bloke was hired in the first place. In fairness I did leave out the part about it all being a ruse to get into womens toilets
You understand that what I'm implicitly saying is they couldn't have genuinely believed that?
Thank you, and that's fair. It took a while but I don't disagree with that.
I will say though, that she must have gone against the legal definition of racism to have been sacked like that. After all, she was the jewel in the crown of their brand new campaign and she could have them over a barrel if she had any case at all. There's no way L'Oreal would have wanted this either.
It can't be denied, whether you or I think it was racist or not, she should have attempted to get her point across far better. I wouldn't say she should shut up, of course not, but in her position she really shouldn't have used such inflammatory language.
I'm not just talking about Egypt, but what we know today as Mali and Sudan amongst others.
They did believe that. They did think anyone who was non-European as a "savage" who's only use is to be ruled by an European. Europeans did think themselves as better than the rest of the world.
C'mon man, you're grasping at straws here. Mali? Mansa Musa's wealth was impressive surely, but he did almost nothing with it. Ethiopia was an impressive civilization, but it remained uncolonized so it doesn't fit the discussion (one of the reasons they remained uncolonized until Italy attempted is was because they were Christian and as such they enjoyed a fair bit of luxury in diplomatic relations with Europe.
My point is, by the time Europe colonized them they were seen as savages. Even the Chinese were seen as inferior to Europeans and they were a far greater civilization than the Malis, for example.
They did though. Even as recently as Churchill
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html
This is false. African colonies were hugely profitable.
Which leads me to this statement. The African colonies provided seemingly exponential sources of free labour.
In 1745, Postletwayt notes that the British empire is "a magnificent superstructure of American commerce and naval power, [founded] on an African foundation". The colonies you refer to as being profitable (the Americas in particular), were profitable because of labour extracted from Africa. To then assert that the African colonies were unprofitable is so ridiculous (insofar as it ignores the obvious link between cause and effect) that I have to question whether or not you're entirely serious.
He's probably talking about the University of Al Quaraouiyine - which opens a discussion on the meaning of "University"
I'd imagine that some did and some didn't, but used the other's belief for their own personal gain.
I'm not sure of your point ? What is happening in the Congo isn't industrialisation it's slavery and while in you can make a immoral case about China, there is no case for the essentially shiny labour camps(Also as for $135 billion foreign aid that's nothing, considering Apple sold $215.6bn of products last year.)
But the point is, white westerns are benefiting from the exploitation and slavery of non white people - ''You can benefit from racism and not be a racist person''. Could the model have worded her case better, well yes but the fact this is be talked about on television, is something of a positive .
No, they were not.
The American colonies were funded by Africans BROUGHT from other Africans. Europe started actively colonizing Africa much later so your point doesn't count. We're talking about how profitable the African coloniers itself were, not about the slave trade.
Furthermore I entirely disagree with that statement considering that Europe didn't control anything of Africa until that point and there is really no argument to hold that Africans were the foundation of anything, they were just slaves.
What she said is totally racist but I'm more worried about Lil Kim over in Korea at this point.
Could also look at it from the perspective of who they were profitable for.
They were definitely profitable for the elites and businessmen, even if they weren't for the national governments directly.
While I understand her point, her "I have got many, many allies of all races" sounds a lot like "I'm not racist, I have black friends".
- Status