Taking a ‘ho ho no’ look at cultural slip-ups
Meri Kirihimete. What better way to celebrate Christmas than to look at some of this year’s cases of “ho ho no” — be it cultural appropriation, or racial discrimination. Identity politics and human rights are fraught areas to discuss, particularly as they also bring to light issues around representation, and virtue signalling.
And for every complaint of tonedeaf marketing and discrimination, screeds of potential perpetrators who can’t handle the discomfort will scream “political correctness-gone mad” from the rooftops.
Nevertheless, not that long ago (maybe it was) I was an intern pitching a story about golliwogs being sold at a major retail outlet, only to be told by my chief reporter it “was just a toy”. And hell is just a sauna.
Just this month Kiwi fashion outlet Trelise Cooper labelled its latest design a “Trail of Tiers”, which was said to be mocking the forced mass relocation and ethnic genocide of native Americans between 1830-1850. In a statement, Dame Trelise Cooper said she was “completely unaware” of the phrase’s history, and the dress was pulled from its online store.
Fellow designer Annah Stretton was slammed in October for a poster in the window of her Wellington store that featured the designer alongside two women of colour, wearing makeup akin to golliwog dolls, and the text: “Most people will tell you what you can’t do. I am only interested in what I can do”.
Stretton issued a statement saying: “Out of context the image may be difficult for some in light of ‘Black Lives Matter’ and other ongoing positive (global and national) changes to what is acceptable and what is not, in current day.” The poster went.
In June this year, an ad for Tasti Bars was criticised for portraying Kiwiana icons and taonga Ma¯ori in a light-hearted manner, and incorrectly implied Captain Cook was killed and eaten by Ma¯ori. The ad showed Cook being spit-roasted over an open fire while Ma¯ori in piupiu played music.
Managing director Josette Prince pulled the ad and apologised.
That same month, Nestle said it would rename Chicos and Red Skins candy in a bid to ensure “friends, neighbours, and colleagues weren’t marginalised”. Tip Top said it would rename its Eskimo Pie ice cream bars because the name had “changed meaning” since the product was introduced in 1940. And Pascall’s Eskimo lollies would also follow suit.
But have these names changed “meaning” or has society started to recognise that marginalisation and commercialisation of culture and discriminatory history is no longer acceptable?
I could go on (and on) but instead let’s look at the legal framework.
The Advertising Standards Code provides the criteria to ensure ads are legal, decent, honest and truthful, and respect the principles of fair competition. Under rule 1(c), ads must not contain anything that is indecent, or exploitative, or degrading, or likely to cause harm, or serious widespread offence, or give rise to hostility, contempt, abuse, or ridicule.
Interestingly, stereotypes may be used to simplify communication, but they must not feature roles or characteristics which, through their content and context, are likely to be harmful or offensive. The ad must not include irresponsible or offensive depictions of differences including race, body shapes and sizes.
If an ad is found in breach of the code, it must be removed and/or amended. All decisions are released to the media. If a regulatory authority considers there has been a serious breach, the Commerce Commission, Medsafe, and/or the Financial Markets Authority, for example, could prosecute the advertisers.
In the November case of ASB Bank Limited (the tautology gets me every time), an ad showed a mixed-race couple arriving to view a house on sale. As they walked up the driveway, the neighbour began to play the bagpipes while sporting a Scottish kilt. The couple backed away from the house and the bagpiper smiled wryly.
A complaint was made saying the ad could be promoting racism against mixed-race couples and cultural insensitivity towards Scottish people. The ad was removed before it went before a Complaints Board.
One step further: Unlawful discrimination on the grounds of race occurs when a person is treated unfairly or less favourably than others, according to the Human Rights Commission.
About a third of all complaints to the commission are about racial discrimination. Nine out of 10 are resolved by its team of mediators.
This year’s annual report said the commission received 5915 new inquiries and complaints. Of these, 1445 were complaints of alleged unlawful discrimination and 383 were race-related.
The director of Human Rights Proceedings made 65 decisions on applications for legal representation in the Human Rights Review Tribunal. Of these, the director granted legal representation to 19 applicants.
What does this tell me, as a privileged “European other” woman? Do your research; avoid profiting off those marginalised; consult and include widely; and do no harm. It may take more time, it may seem complicated, and it may be uncomfortable, but it could be worse — imagine a lifetime of discrimination.
If you’ve got any tips, legal tidbits, or appointments that might be of interest, please email Sasha — on sasha.borissenko@gmail.com