https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/37-clicks-stores-closed-in-five-provinces-as-eff-protests-rock-retailer-c664eeca-d776-40fd-accf-977f3c347a57
holy shit people actually looked at that and said "yeah thats ok put that out"
I mean it's South Africa, there's a ton of racists here. Look at r/southafrica and their reaction to this on reddit if you want to gauge your eyes out.
I would but I have some sense of mental self preservation stopping me
Pretty funny, a non-profit in the US (don't wanna tell which one cause they did fix it when it was pointed out) updated their application to be more "woke" I guess with new gender options: male, female, and transgender. This was in 2019 btw...lmao.
The contrast between the "normal" and "fine" hair and the black people's hair with negative adjectives is obviously the worst thing about this, but thick hair like mine isn't even on here
Or even a person of any race with naturally curly hair? Is that not normal now, does it have to be flattened? Terrible advertisement all round
Slight Devil's Advocate, but 'fine' hair in this context means thin hair, not that it's "Okay/fine". Of course the other parts of the ad are racist.
Yeah you're right, I thought it was even more positive than okay, fine as in when it means high quality. Now I know fine hair is its own thing
Me too, and I say this as a white South African. The moralising is disgusting. There's a ton of pent up anger here from POC who have been forced to straighten their hair using harmful chemicals that can burn your scalp (I know a few personally). The moralising is disingenuous at best and racist at worst.
Malcolm X talks about how white people have essentially convinced or beaten into black people that they should be more like white people because it is “acceptable.” The white man teaches you to hate your features, yourself, your skin color just so they can keep the image civility.
That's not racist, these are real things that people buy products for.
Many many many Black girls use hair straightening products (because untreated 'ethnic' hair is not socially accepted because racism), and that leads to "dry & damaged" hair.
"Fine and flat" means thin and straw like, that is not good, it is hard to control, and usually becomes frizzy too.There are specific brands catering to Black women, because their hair is different, often with tiny curls, and it benefits from specific types of shampoo.
Ordinary shampoo makes their hair "frizzy and dull".The only problem with this advertising is the White girl being shown for "normal hair", but even that, discouraging Black girls from buying that shampoo helps them.
If anything, it should be called "White hair", but that would be too 'racist', and that just doesn't sell well.Find me a Black girl with long hair that says that stuff is racist and maybe I'll change sides on this.
Literally the Miss Universe "activist" that started this has short hair.See /r/CurlyHair for reference....
Edit: if you use 3 in 1 shampoo + conditioner + body wash, you really don't get to have an opinion about any of this.
The racism is using negative adjectives for the natural black hair and positive ones for white hair in the photo. If they wanted to show how their products worked, they could just use another black person for the "normal" or "after straightening" photos. About your point about people with long hair thinking the advert is offensive, here is a 2 minute video with people of all different hair lengths in response to the clicks advert.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Diane_Gahiza/status/1302877190653202433
Also did you even read that tweet?
In my view, the #Clicks case #BlackHairMatter,is a textbook case of unconscious bias. Calling it out is great but anarchy and violence undermine the cause. The best and most cerebral response I’ve seen so far is a video by young black women, among them my colleague @Diane_Gahiza
Then Diane Gahiza's video is about body positivity, barely even mentions Clicks, does not focus on the ad that started it at all.
On YouTube, searching "Clicks South Africa" posted in the last week >20 minutes, this is the second result I get: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c-qDESefc0
He's a liberal/libertarian or something, but the point is: even Black guys think this is ridiculous and overblown.That tweet is not from the creators of the video, but Thuli Madonsela, a judge that retweeted the video. If you listen to the end of the video they call out clicks by name. Now to be equally condescending, do you understand how retweets work, or to listen to the end of a video, instead of trying to get gotcha points on the internet. Also massive lol at linking the bigdaddyliberty channel, he's basically a South African Candice Owens and no one takes him fucking seriously. His opinion is no where near what most people think, stop trying to use his video as a gotcha. Also stop trying to explain events that are happening in my own country, it comes across as condescending. While I may not be a woman, I have friends that were forced to chemically straighten their hair in school and burned their scalp, and ended up having to leave the school because of it. They were incredibly offended by the advert given their personal experience with such things.
If you listen to the end of the video they call out clicks by name.
I know, but that is one person in the entire complication, and mention once at the end ≠ focus on
Which is the way it should be, Clicks and their ad does not really matter, but the wider attitudes do.he’s basically a South African Candice Owens and no one takes him fucking seriously
Sure, I've never heard of him, but he's still the only one that seems to be discussing it at length on YouTube.
Basically all the other long videos are product hauls...I have friends that were forced to chemically straighten their hair in school and burned their scalp,
Which is terrible, but also not the product they were advertising in this case.
Those hair straitening products are the cause of damaged hair.I guess it is fucked up that schools are forcing that damage, and then companies are profiting on it, but I'm not sure anyone is reading that far into it.
They were incredibly offended by the advert given their personal experience with such things.
Fair enough, I obviously can't argue with that.
Edit:I'll probably shut up about this now.
:I’ll probably shut up about this now.
Me too. Sorry if I come across as rude or mean, it's just when you know people personally who have been effected by all this it's different, you know? Again I apologize if I was an asshole, it's not my intention. :heart-sickle:
That is okay, you're not mean at all. And I rarely take things personally anyway.
My entry point for this whole issue was just completely different.
Because I have have wavy/curly blonde hair and deal with those same frizziness, damage, flat/dullness, fine/thin, issues.
That often means buying shampoo and conditioner that is marketed mostly for Black women.And it is precisely women that want natural curly hair that talk about managing frizziness and the problems of hair damage due to straightening:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ50_b5DjfE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr3uq3Xgj9k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9NA_Tfa-Fk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ0cxxztRIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llXd8bPDY4I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSbRr5pDtJY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZDTI_9krbg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOKIVG_BEDc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyKEcvihhDo
etc, etc, could easily find dozens if not hundreds more videos just like that.Often they cut their hair short first, then switch to a natural curly hair method; because most repeatedly straightened hair is too chemically/heat damaged to be saved.
But that original image is not really even an advertisment, those were just screenshots from their mobile webpage.
So that list probably contained many more items, like:
"oily hair" , which is specifically a straight or short hair problem that often occurs along with acne.
"color-treated hair" which again cannot use normal shampoo or conditioner because it washes out the paint.
"dandruff hair", "hair extensions", "hair loss", "greying hair", or even "lice ridden hair" which is not a real category but still type of shampoo.I found only one public curly hair group talking about Clicks, they are from South Africa, and especially took offense to "normal hair", but not much of anything else.
But those with "normal hair" can use basically any shampoo or conditioner without causing problems, that is practically how "normal hair" is defined.
It is only people with any other hair type that should avoid those products because they contain harsh cleansers, solvents, silicone, etc, that cause frizziness.There are Black women with naturally straight hair too but they are relatively rare; if they used a picture like that many people would assume they were calling straightened hair 'normal' and become justifiably even more offended.
Those pictures really just represent the dominant demographic that buys those types of hair products.
They probably should have categorized their shampoo by hair types instead of hair problems; but who could really expect that to become a 'racism' issue?The vast majority of Clicks employees (besides its top layers of management) are Black women too.
(see page 8: https://www.clicksgroup.co.za/assets/corporate-sustainability/2019/4-Clicks-SR-2019-Empowering-our-Employees.pdf)
It would not surprise me at all if those two responsible employees they suspended were also Black women, or just random people in management or marketing suspended only as a PR stunt.That said, Clicks has done plenty more do deserve these protests against them:
https://www.iol.co.za/the-star/news/covid-19-employees-level-serious-allegations-against-clicks-stores-47072301I just hope this forces their (majority White) upper management to change and become more representative of the actual workforce.
Instead of just hurting workers with additional lost pay during the pandemic.The way it was all framed certainly looks racist, but... yeah... I have no idea what to finally make of this.
Although, conspiracy theory, maybe that was the whole intent.
What if she made those screenshots that way because Clicks is shit, and just wanted to burn them down.
I honestly would have huge respect it if that was what really happened here. 10/10 agitprop skills.Oh well, I'm gonna go read that other thread where people disagree with me now. >_<
using negative adjectives for the natural black hair
But the primary reason that people buy more specific hair products is when they have some problem that they want to fix.
That is how people know that they should use another product in the first place.they could just use another black person for the “normal” or “after straightening” photos.
The whole point is that so many Black women are now stopping with straightening. Which is why they seek repair shampoos and such.
If you keep straightening, there is effectively no need for those kinds of shampoos anyway.But fair enough, I can see how it would be misread as intentional/unconscious racism by people unaware of market trends.
And because that is most people, it probably is good that they have stopped that advertising campaign.It could have been more neutral if those ads showed before and after pictures instead, but adverting space comes at a premium.
There is a more general argument to be made here about how all advertising is harmful, how it systematically highlights insecurities, but that just gets lost with this whole racism angle.
Edit: also I'm pretty sure many of those women are aware of these things, and just riding the coat tails of this 'racism' controversy to get their body positivity message out there.
[he/him] also no
Nice mansplaining you got there, very convincing.
I have actually followed Sut Jhally's university courses on advertising and propaganda, so maybe come up with a better argument, or shut the fuck up.
I've been aware of this whole 'ethnic' hair body positivity stuff for years now. And in White majority countries a huge part of it has been just having access to better shampoo.
Like in Europe buying shampoo or conditioner that works well with curly Black hair, until recently, meant purchasing online or going to a specialty store.That is why shops specifically advertise that they carry those products; although Clicks is in South Africa, so that is probably different.
And at least those ads are still a step up from pushing hair straightening products.One could argue about the pictures they chose to use in their ad, but consider: if they used nicer looking hair, that would be racist because it insults even nice looking hair, but if they used worse looking hair, that would be racist because it is bad representation.
So they went for a middle ground, okayish hair, but there was really no way to win there. The likely outcome is just that they are going to stop marketing in ways that focus on apparent needs (keywords that people use in searching for products), but rather are centered on aspirations.
Which just means advertising will continue consisting of mostly unattainable images; that is what I mean by all advertising is harmful.I'm not saying the EFF protestors are bad or ineffective, they will force positive changes; but claiming that it was an "extremely racist advertisement" is overblown and depends on a very shallow reading.
Which again, a shallow reading is what most people have, so the ads still operate as racist, which is why they should be stopped, but the hyperbole does not help to that end.
Calling it something like an "advertisement that perpetuates racism" is at least accurate and not going to get any resistance from overeducated assholes like me.Edit: my intent is not to be reactionary, but just to explain why I hold this position. I don't live in South Africa, I'm not counter protesting or anything, obviously.
Do you at least understand why, if you take this kind of attitude, White people are not going to do anything else besides violently resist you?
There is zero attempt at dialogue here, you're not making any allies this way. Literally you sound more like a PsyOp than an activist right now.You think I'm wrong, then tell me what to read.
I don’t live in South Africa.
Then you lack the context to understand why the advert is "incredibly racist". Schools and various organizations/companies are still trying to force people to chemically straighten their hair despite many protests against it over the past few years. Given all this very recent historical context, the ad is racist, regardless of the intentions of those who made it.
Historical context:
https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2020-06-18-pupils-at-pretoria-high-school-for-girls-stage-protest-against-racism/https://www.iol.co.za/pretoria-news/learners-at-st-marys-diocesan-school-for-girls-demand-change-49960544
