Multinational got it all wrong as regards racial identity
AND so the New Year starts off with another bang.
Once again a “monkey” triggers racial outrage and response.
Call it “The Battle of the Mannequins” – the EFF against Hennes & Mauritz AB (H&M), in which at least five mannequins are slain by the EFF and H&M heads for the bunker.
The world’s second largest fashion retailer’s racist and “racist” online hoodie pitch gave rise to EFF protests at several of its 17 stores in South Africa.
At least two of the protests led to stores being trashed and the protest capturing the headlines of global newspapers such as the New York Times.
Social media is flooded with video clips of two men going “ninja” on mannequins and clothing racks.
The white mannequins never saw it coming, nor did H&M.
H&M had landed itself in hot water the previous week by profiling a young black model (with his parent’s full support) wearing a hoodie with the slogan, “coolest monkey in the jungle”, as part of its Europewide online campaign.
By the Monday (before the EFF’s subsequent Saturday protest), in response to the overwhelming backlash, H&M had fallen on its sword and tendered an unreserved apology: “We have got this wrong and we are deeply sorry . . . we agree that, even if unintentional, passive or casual racism needs to be eradicated wherever it exists . . .
“As a global brand, we have a responsibility to be aware of and attuned to all racial and cultural sensitivities – and we have not lived up to this responsibility this time.”
The model’s mother then added fuel to the fire by stating that people were overreacting, that her son had modelled many clothes and that in her opinion – while everyone was entitled to their own opinion – the pictures were not racist, all she saw was her boy in a hoodie.
“No, she’s wrong,” said the EFF spokesperson, Dr Mbuyiseni Ndlozi, in an SABC interview.
He went on to explain that the EFF had no “programme of violence”, but that this is what “rage” against anti-black racism looked like and that he “affirmed” such bottom-up action by EFF branches.
“We live in this body, we live in this skin,” he said in answer to Peter Ndoro’s question as to whether the EFF was setting a dangerous precedent by legitimising violence as an acceptable expression of anger.
Clearly the protests had been planned, but the trashing not, and EFF command was doing the intricate dance of explaining without losing face. Heroes or hooligans? Responses to the bottom-up EFF action have been global and wide-ranging.
Actress Pearl Thusi: “So instead of fighting at their level you’re just going to vandalise stores and establishments? “Spread violence and fear? “Oh, OK. Just misrepresent us all as savages then.”
Radio talk show host Eusebius McKaiser said: “EFF has scored a massive own goal.
“[And no, FYI, you are not more committed to bringing about an anti-racist society than the rest of us if you agree with EFF vigilantism. That’s a false test of commitment to fight racism.]”
Author and show host Redi Tlhabi added: “Mmmm . . . this destruction and rampage will teach the big bosses in London and USA a lesson né ...
“Oh and of course, the poor black working class that must face ignominy of cleaning up. Wow!”
For black voices, the bulk of the debate is on how best to respond; very little debate has been on whether it is racist. How did H&M get itself so lost? Originally founded in 1947 by 31-year-old Erling Persson as a women’s clothing store in Västerås, Sweden, H&M now operates several brands across 4 500 stores in 69 markets (and 43 online markets), and employs 161 000 employees globally. It is the archetypical multinational. Listed on the Swedish stock exchange it is chaired by Stefan Persson (son of the founder), with Karl-Johan Persson (son of the chairman) as chief executive.
The Persson family are billionaires as a result.
The group has a board totalling 12 people – seven women and five men.
Up until now it has ticked all the right boxes.
It talks and walks sustainability; its board has a great gender balance; one of its core values is “we believe in people”, and supposedly it’s clear on how it’s meant to do things:
“We are a value-driven, customer-focused, creative and responsible fashion company. Fashion, team spirit and constant improvements are essential to us.
“When we do business ‘The H&M Way’ we do so ethically, honestly and responsibly.” It doesn’t sound like a racist company. But here’s the thing.
All the group board members are white (and European).
Of the global 4 500 stores it owns – while there are 511 stores in the US and 490 stores in China (its two biggest markets), it only owns 17 stores in Africa, all of them in South Africa.
H&M is a European company catering to a “white” market, but it seems to have been blind to that until now.
It’s never had to consider that a black child model with “monkey” on the front could be seen in a way that wasn’t its intention.
Except that’s not entirely true.
When H&M first opened its doors to South Africa in 2015, the mannequins were very obviously white.
When the EFF “uncontrollables” gave in to their adrenaline rush, the mannequins they trashed again appear to be all white.
Why did the global brand seeking to be attuned to racial sensitivities not do that one small thing of diversifying its mannequins? For what reason did this Eurocentric company not hear the contrary voices in time?
Could it be that both the EFF and H&M are in conflict due to the unintended consequences of actions taken by persons within their structures? Are both blinded by their singular focus? The temptation is to dismiss the EFF protest out of hand; to label it hooliganism/vandalism/savagery; to point out the duplicity of going ninja on vulnerable H&M but not on the American Embassy (after the US’s president’s “sh#thole” comments).
Perhaps Afriforum will succeed in its charges of inciting public violence; perhaps the DA will convince Malema to pay for the damages; perhaps the malls concerned will sue for violation of private property. Perhaps.
Racism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
As with sexual harassment and child molestation, it is the person on the receiving end who calls it.
That typically is going to be a black person saying please stop.
The white person who hears it has a number of choices: play dumb like a mannequin, reach for the law, call down from the moral high ground, or stop and listen. And then change.
Who’s your monkey?