H&M apologises over 'racist' image of black boy in hoodie

Kk.

always many sides to the coin, like others have said maybe the boy himself really liked that jumper and wanted to wear it, or maybe the colour suited him the best. everybody uses the phrase "cheeky monkey" especially towards kids or are we going to be banning that phrase from schools as well when someone (white) cries racism.

ha where did all your distaste go

Funny because I'm black and I did not care one bit and i wasn't boring enough to find it 'distasteful'. Just grow a pair and stop getting offended over everything, there are more serious issues around the world.

Funny because I'm black and I did not care one bit and i wasn't boring enough to find it 'distasteful'. Just grow a pair and stop getting offended over everything, there are more serious issues around the world.

I never said that they were racist. I said the picture was. Read.

Funny because I'm black

Just found out you’re Indian why are you claiming your black 😂 Very embarrassing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/42603960/hm-apologises-over-racist-image-of-black-boy-in-hoodie

People on social media have called H&M "racist" for showing a black child modelling a hoodie that says 'coolest monkey in the jungle.'

Some are calling for a boycott of the brand over the picture, while others defended the retailer.

H&M has said: "We apologise to anyone this may have offended." People took to Twitter to describe the image published by the Swedish chain as inappropriate and offensive. The photograph was being using in the children's section of the UK site and some people weren't happy.

The problem with you is that you're pedantic. Racism and intent are two separate things. If you do or say something racist, but claim it wasnt intentional then by your silly logic that means the original action is no longer racist.

The effect of an action takes precedent over the intent. In this case, the ad campaign may be accidentally racist but its racist nonetheless.

You realise you're wrong because you can't argue with the facts I've presented as to the definition of racism, so you call me a pedant and try to twist the definition to suit your own agenda. I could stop right there... but I won't.

That's a ridiculous example. All that would be happening there is, someone has been racist and then claims that they weren't. They were being racist, because the intent was there - just because they then claim that the intent wasn't there, doesn't mean it wasn't intentional. In the scenario of this advertising campaign, we again can safely assume that the advert was not intended to be racially offensive and the advertising team were not discriminating against, or prejudiced toward, any person or race.

I'll break it down for you one last time, if you still can't see why racism and something being racially offensive are different, then I'm wasting my time, here:

Racism = discrimination or prejudice against another person(s) because of their race.
Discrimination/prejudice = intentional.
No intent = no racism. Racially offensive, yes, but not racist.

Also, an ad campaign is an inanimate thing, it cannot have intent itself. The ad campaign is racist. The people behind it may not be. How is this so hard for you to understand?

It's just the way you and others interpret this. And the campaign does have an intent, otherwise it wouldn't convey that indicator of racism to you, or convey that it was just a mistake on H&M's part on the basis of this issue, as intent does literally mean, purpose.