Is cotton offensive to black people?

[tacosforlife]

Also, I am kind of LOL at this one poster repeatedly telling us about when she worked retail. Because nobody else on the list has any retail experience. NOPE.

[sandsonik]

Dec 10, 2014 19:55:25 GMT -5 @dyermaker said:

I think there is something inherently wistful about decorations and cotton boils does not bring up good memories for anyone but rich old white men, which makes me think it was very thinly veiled. I'd feel the same kind of way over some half assembled 90s Nike shoes being used.

I'd think it was meant to show that it was an all NATURAL product, not made from chemicals.  Like, 'here, let me show what simple stuff these clothes are made of.  This ain't polyester'

I really think that was the intent.  Like putting an ear of corn next to a popcorn display.

[gpw]

Dec 11, 2014 20:14:25 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Dec 10, 2014 19:55:25 GMT -5 @dyermaker said:

I think there is something inherently wistful about decorations and cotton boils does not bring up good memories for anyone but rich old white men, which makes me think it was very thinly veiled. I'd feel the same kind of way over some half assembled 90s Nike shoes being used.

I'd think it was meant to show that it was an all NATURAL product, not made from chemicals.  Like, 'here, let me show what simple stuff these clothes are made of.  This ain't polyester'

I really think that was the intent.  Like putting an ear of corn next to a popcorn display.

I don't think anyone is saying that there was intent to offend.  That isn't the point.  The point is that it *did* offend.  

[sandsonik]

Dec 11, 2014 20:16:11 GMT -5 gpw said:

Dec 11, 2014 20:14:25 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

I'd think it was meant to show that it was an all NATURAL product, not made from chemicals.  Like, 'here, let me show what simple stuff these clothes are made of.  This ain't polyester'

I really think that was the intent.  Like putting an ear of corn next to a popcorn display.

I don't think anyone is saying that there was intent to offend.  That isn't the point.  The point is that it *did* offend.  

The post I was responding to was suggesting that it WAS intentional.  A 'thinly veiled' wistful longing for the good old days of King Cotton.  Heck, she even said that no one but old white men could look favorably upon cotton.

[Michelle]

Dec 11, 2014 16:45:23 GMT -5 00janelane00 said:

I had a moment to catch up...
I'm pretty sheltered if you haven't gathered that by now. For starters I don't think I would associate a raw cotton display with slavery. So assuming Helen is white and also has a similar background I can see how she would have thought nothing of this display. The writer enters the store and says "not today!" and tells her the connection. I still say this doesn't sit well with me. Not in a how dare she kind of way but in a sales associates is busy working kind of way. I'm not talking about race here. This is where I lost you guys because you were talking about race and I wasn't which was dumb because it was the point of the article. Again, I was just trying to relate to the material in a hurry.
I mentioned I would not have taken down the display down because back then I would not have understood the connection between cotton and slavery and I was not in the position to do so. Even now how could I really relate to it? Would I advocate for it today? Yes. Would I then? No, I was a broke high school and college student that needed that job to pay my bills and a cotton display wasn't something on my radar. I don't know if that cleared things up or made things worse but hopefully I was a little more clear now that I had a chance to read more of the thread and had a bit more time to respond.

Also, there are weddings held on plantations with cotton as decoration? Wtf? Even I give that the side eye.

I would love to stick around and post if I can keep up with you guys. I'm sure I don't have the same opinions as everyone but I do love the diversity of this forum and I know I have a lot to learn.

Do the displays not come from corporate? When they involve stuff that does not have the actual product in them? Don't they require some sort of approval for brand consistency?

Because I'm thinking Helen cannot just bring in raw cotton to set up this display. She was told to put it up, or create something using what she had. Sorry if this is addressed somewhere between pp 2 and 7 already. But this is what I'm thinking.

A company is supposed to test new marketing campaigns out on focus groups. That is Marketing 101. Store window displays are part of that for national brands. So clearly Brooks Brothers:

1) Had their focus group of their target demographic: white junior leaguers and white males and they all thought it was a lovely way to represent how all the clothes are natural, not polyester crap. And that it'd be appealing. (And some might even go so far to feel the nostalgia of the Antebellum but I didn't want to go that far). 

The FAIL comes in that their target demographic has zero diversity.
 

2) They had their focus group with a diverse demographic, got the feedback that it would drive African American customers away, and went ahead with it anyway.

The FAIL comes in as an either thinly veiled or blatant racist intention with the display.



A fail either way.

And Helen, if a decent person, should have said, "You know what? I have never thought of it that way. I cannot take it down right now but I apologize that it offended you, and I will (insert remedy, whether it be 1) take it down tonight, 2) report it to corporate and ask permission to take it down, and/or 3) report the complaint to the store manager and planned action to address it, requesting management input or guidance).

She didn't do that either.

FAIL.

[spaghettisquash]

Dec 11, 2014 19:19:02 GMT -5 NitaX said:

Dec 11, 2014 17:01:36 GMT -5 spaghettisquash said:

Are there any books, articles etc that you all recommend to learn more about African American history? I grew up in a bubble and I've been trying over the past few years to learn. I've read the Coates article and Zinn's Peoples History of America. Thanks!

Slavery by Another Name highlights the issues around black men being arrested without cause in order to do labor. There is a PBS Special on it.

Another good PBS broadcast was The African Americans which was done by Henry Louis Gates.

Classic documentary Eyes of the Prize defines my childhood. You couldn't have MLK day out of school and not watch it.

Thanks! I will look for them on Netflix.

[spaghettisquash]

Dec 12, 2014 0:03:05 GMT -5 @smorriso said:

Dec 11, 2014 17:01:36 GMT -5 spaghettisquash said:

Are there any books, articles etc that you all recommend to learn more about African American history? I grew up in a bubble and I've been trying over the past few years to learn. I've read the Coates article and Zinn's Peoples History of America. Thanks!

Black Boy by Richard Wright was really great for me. The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison. Middle Passage by Charles R. Johnson was so beautifully written. Kindred by Octavia Butler is particularly amazing. These are novels, but culturally rich. 

Thanks! 

[Michelle]

Dec 12, 2014 0:03:05 GMT -5 @smorriso said:

Dec 11, 2014 17:01:36 GMT -5 spaghettisquash said:

Are there any books, articles etc that you all recommend to learn more about African American history? I grew up in a bubble and I've been trying over the past few years to learn. I've read the Coates article and Zinn's Peoples History of America. Thanks!

Black Boy by Richard Wright was really great for me. The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison. Middle Passage by Charles R. Johnson was so beautifully written. Kindred by Octavia Butler is particularly amazing. These are novels, but culturally rich. 

Black Boy changed my life and my spirit and my consciousness. I cannot recommend this book highly enough. And tissues. Read it with tissues.

[sandsonik]

Dec 12, 2014 0:12:29 GMT -5 @smorriso said:

Dec 11, 2014 20:14:25 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

I'd think it was meant to show that it was an all NATURAL product, not made from chemicals.  Like, 'here, let me show what simple stuff these clothes are made of.  This ain't polyester'

I really think that was the intent.  Like putting an ear of corn next to a popcorn display.

All natural and picked by whom? The sweater buyer's servants? thefuckouttahere.

.

Picked by the same exploited migrant workers who pick your vegetables, most likely, assuming it's not done by machine. Should we avoid all crops that were farmed or harvested by slaves in the 1800s? What would be left to eat? And if we avoid cotton because of some century old stigma, can we be assured we are not exploiting someone else with our chosen replacement?

Or is it a case of you'll wear the cotton as long as you don't have to be reminded that it is cotton, like those who can feel morally comfortable eating meat as long as no one reminds them meat comes from animals?

Because then it just seems like a life lived in denial. Only it's not like refusing to wear cotton would even help slaves, it's too late for that. Cotton didn't create slavery, humans did. Hate them; I guess i don't understand the point of hating cotton.

But then I've often been misunderstood for the help, too. It's annoying sometimes but there are more offensive things than people assuming you have a job. If that's the worst that's ever assumed about me, I'll take it.:cool::

[NewOrleans]

Dec 14, 2014 12:07:21 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Dec 12, 2014 0:12:29 GMT -5 @smorriso said:

Picked by the same exploited migrant workers who pick your vegetables, most likely, assuming it's not done by machine. Should we avoid all crops that were farmed or harvested by slaves in the 1800s? What would be left to eat? And if we avoid cotton because of some century old stigma, can we be assured we are not exploiting someone else with our chosen replacement?

Or is it a case of you'll wear the cotton as long as you don't have to be reminded that it is cotton, like those who can feel morally comfortable eating meat as long as no one reminds them meat comes from animals?

Because then it just seems like a life lived in denial. Only it's not like refusing to wear cotton would even help slaves, it's too late for that. Cotton didn't create slavery, humans did. Hate them; I guess i don't understand the point of hating cotton.

But then I've often been misunderstood for the help, too. It's annoying sometimes but there are more offensive things than people assuming you have a job. If that's the worst that's ever assumed about me, I'll take it.:cool::

[gpw]

Dec 14, 2014 18:18:10 GMT -5 @smorriso said:

Dec 14, 2014 12:07:21 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Picked by the same exploited migrant workers who pick your vegetables, most likely, assuming it's not done by machine. Should we avoid all crops that were farmed or harvested by slaves in the 1800s? What would be left to eat? And if we avoid cotton because of some century old stigma, can we be assured we are not exploiting someone else with our chosen replacement?

Or is it a case of you'll wear the cotton as long as you don't have to be reminded that it is cotton, like those who can feel morally comfortable eating meat as long as no one reminds them meat comes from animals?

Because then it just seems like a life lived in denial. Only it's not like refusing to wear cotton would even help slaves, it's too late for that. Cotton didn't create slavery, humans did. Hate them; I guess i don't understand the point of hating cotton.

But then I've often been misunderstood for the help, too. It's annoying sometimes but there are more offensive things than people assuming you have a job. If that's the worst that's ever assumed about me, I'll take it.:cool::

Not sure if I can simplify this for your understanding. We never said we hated cotton or that we don't wear cotton. However, marketing the commodity in a way that draws out the horrific history behind it's popularity, economic benefit, etc etc. (btw - all tied to slavery when cotton was stored in barrels and viewed raw) is a damn problem. 

If people can understand why in the hell you wouldn't want a swastika on your wrapping paper because, even though the holocaust is over, it still was a murderous tragic time that has harsh connections when a swastika is displayed. 

Let me know if I should use just one syllable words for you to help you understand better.

You've come a long way, baby.  The cursing will start soon, I just know it.  

[NitaX]

Dec 14, 2014 16:34:48 GMT -5 @cse1960 said:

I am just trying to fathom the level of outrage if someone were to open a Dachau themed wedding facility so that those who longed for the good old days of Jewish extermination could get married in a fantasy place where Jews no longer existed. Or a housing development with streets named for various famous concentration camps. Or a famous department store used six pointed gold stars to sell things and someone defended that with the statement WELL ITS JUST A GOLD STAR GOD YOU PEOPLE ARE SO SENSITIVE JUST BRUSH IT OFF. It is astounding to me that anyone could think it is cute or acceptable or interesting or ok in any way to do the same things with slavery and yet it is so pervasive in this country that people can tell themselves it is meaningless and even deny the reality of it. And then be all blinky eyed and refuse to understand the obvious connection as being so offensive.

I'm so white I don't know what to do with myself sometimes and live in a particularly conservative part of this country and even I understand the connection between cotton and oppression.of African-Americans. If there is one thing I am grateful for about this board it's the continuing efforts by people here to educate and inform and I hope the efforts are not too discouraging.

I want to like this 100 times. Seriously. all of this.

[katfco]

Dec 14, 2014 12:07:21 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Dec 12, 2014 0:12:29 GMT -5 @smorriso said:

All natural and picked by whom? The sweater buyer's servants? thefuckouttahere.

.

Picked by the same exploited migrant workers who pick your vegetables, most likely, assuming it's not done by machine. Should we avoid all crops that were farmed or harvested by slaves in the 1800s? What would be left to eat? And if we avoid cotton because of some century old stigma, can we be assured we are not exploiting someone else with our chosen replacement?

Or is it a case of you'll wear the cotton as long as you don't have to be reminded that it is cotton, like those who can feel morally comfortable eating meat as long as no one reminds them meat comes from animals?

Because then it just seems like a life lived in denial. Only it's not like refusing to wear cotton would even help slaves, it's too late for that. Cotton didn't create slavery, humans did. Hate them; I guess i don't understand the point of hating cotton.

But then I've often been misunderstood for the help, too. It's annoying sometimes but there are more offensive things than people assuming you have a job. If that's the worst that's ever assumed about me, I'll take it.:cool::

1. They're not saying "avoid cotton in protest of the history of slavery." 
2. They're saying, "Cotton is a widely-recognized symbol of slavery, especially to African-Americans, since it was the primary crop in the South."
3. Are you seriously comparing their discomfort with being reminded of slavery to vegetarianism??
4. They're not the ones in denial, sweetie.
5. They're not suggesting boycotting cotton as a political statement. They're not even suggesting boycotting cotton. They're saying raw cotton has a personal and historical significance and openly displaying raw cotton is disturbing.
6. "there are more offensive things than people assuming you have a job. If that's the worst that's ever assumed about me" You do realize the whole issue with the cotton has to do with slavery and the effects of it--that it's not that they're mistaken for "having a job," but rather historically African-Americans are more likely to be assumed to be servants. And they're pretty tired of it, and it's only the tip of the iceberg regarding "the worst that's ever assumed" about them. 

(I say "they" because I'm white and, before this thread, probably couldn't have told you what a raw cotton stalk looked like--and thank you all for the education) 

[sandsonik]

Dec 14, 2014 18:18:10 GMT -5 @smorriso said:

Dec 14, 2014 12:07:21 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Picked by the same exploited migrant workers who pick your vegetables, most likely, assuming it's not done by machine. Should we avoid all crops that were farmed or harvested by slaves in the 1800s? What would be left to eat? And if we avoid cotton because of some century old stigma, can we be assured we are not exploiting someone else with our chosen replacement?

Or is it a case of you'll wear the cotton as long as you don't have to be reminded that it is cotton, like those who can feel morally comfortable eating meat as long as no one reminds them meat comes from animals?

Because then it just seems like a life lived in denial. Only it's not like refusing to wear cotton would even help slaves, it's too late for that. Cotton didn't create slavery, humans did. Hate them; I guess i don't understand the point of hating cotton.

But then I've often been misunderstood for the help, too. It's annoying sometimes but there are more offensive things than people assuming you have a job. If that's the worst that's ever assumed about me, I'll take it.:cool::

Not sure if I can simplify this for your understanding. We never said we hated cotton or that we don't wear cotton. However, marketing the commodity in a way that draws out the horrific history behind it's popularity, economic benefit, etc etc. (btw - all tied to slavery when cotton was stored in barrels and viewed raw) is a damn problem. 

If people can understand why in the hell you wouldn't want a swastika on your wrapping paper because, even though the holocaust is over, it still was a murderous tragic time that has harsh connections when a swastika is displayed. 

Let me know if I should use just one syllable words for you to help you understand better.

I'm sorry you're incapable of responding without insulting me.  I didn't insult anyone and any attempts you make to increase my understanding are not likely to succeed when coupled with derision.

Would you like it if I were equally condescending and 'Let me see if I can explain this to you in a way you can understand:

You said 'marketing the commodity in a way that draws out the horrific history behind it's popularity, economic benefit, etc etc. (btw - all tied to slavery when cotton was stored in barrels and viewed raw) is a damn problem. ' but it wasn't marketed that way.  If there pictures of plantations and slaves in the field I would be the first to agree it was offensive and probably intentionally so.  But there weren't.  There was just cotton. 

If you saw a barrel of peanuts, a head of lettuce or a cannister or sugar, are you repulsed by the horrific symbolism, or do you look at the products for what they are?

No doubt many of my forefathers perished because of  cruel policies that left them nothing to potatos to eat while the landowners got the good stuff, and when the potato crops were blighted, landowners still insisted on their rent.

Should grocery stores think twice about putting potatos out?  What about when it's for something unrelated like Mr Potato Head.

Was it the fault of the slave owner/landlord or the crop?

Frankly, the Swastika comparison doesn't hold up.  There's no 'good' (or functional) use of a Swastika which is and always has been completely symbolic.

I can understand how someone who picked cotton would never want to see cotton again.  I can understand how someone whose family had that history might feel a certain way about cotton.  But we all feel a certain way about something.  I had a crappy summer job once packaging snaps (like for sewing) on an assembly line and I never want to see another snap again.  I don't expect a sewing supply store to listen to us snap packers though, I'll just look the other way.

I don't know, I can see both sides of this discussion.   I think both sides have valid points.  Evidently you cannot and you think it's fine to attack anyone who holds a different opinion.

That's what I hate about the politicized climate of this country (and evidently this board).  No one can have a discussion without resorting to name calling and insults anymore.

[pixy0stix]

Dec 14, 2014 16:34:48 GMT -5 @cse1960 said:

I am just trying to fathom the level of outrage if someone were to open a Dachau themed wedding facility so that those who longed for the good old days of Jewish extermination could get married in a fantasy place where Jews no longer existed. Or a housing development with streets named for various famous concentration camps. Or a famous department store used six pointed gold stars to sell things and someone defended that with the statement WELL ITS JUST A GOLD STAR GOD YOU PEOPLE ARE SO SENSITIVE JUST BRUSH IT OFF. It is astounding to me that anyone could think it is cute or acceptable or interesting or ok in any way to do the same things with slavery and yet it is so pervasive in this country that people can tell themselves it is meaningless and even deny the reality of it. And then be all blinky eyed and refuse to understand the obvious connection as being so offensive.

Zara earlier this year offered this shirt:



Outcry was immediate and vehement. It was pulled immediately from the website. No one said anything about people getting over themselves. www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/living/zara-pulls-sheriff-star-shirt/

[StrawberryBlondie]

Dec 14, 2014 19:01:48 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Dec 14, 2014 18:18:10 GMT -5 @smorriso said:

Not sure if I can simplify this for your understanding. We never said we hated cotton or that we don't wear cotton. However, marketing the commodity in a way that draws out the horrific history behind it's popularity, economic benefit, etc etc. (btw - all tied to slavery when cotton was stored in barrels and viewed raw) is a damn problem. 

If people can understand why in the hell you wouldn't want a swastika on your wrapping paper because, even though the holocaust is over, it still was a murderous tragic time that has harsh connections when a swastika is displayed. 

Let me know if I should use just one syllable words for you to help you understand better.

I'm sorry you're incapable of responding without insulting me.  I didn't insult anyone and any attempts you make to increase my understanding are not likely to succeed when coupled with derision.

Would you like it if I were equally condescending and 'Let me see if I can explain this to you in a way you can understand:

You said 'marketing the commodity in a way that draws out the horrific history behind it's popularity, economic benefit, etc etc. (btw - all tied to slavery when cotton was stored in barrels and viewed raw) is a damn problem. ' but it wasn't marketed that way.  If there pictures of plantations and slaves in the field I would be the first to agree it was offensive and probably intentionally so.  But there weren't.  There was just cotton. 

If you saw a barrel of peanuts, a head of lettuce or a cannister or sugar, are you repulsed by the horrific symbolism, or do you look at the products for what they are?

No doubt many of my forefathers perished because of  cruel policies that left them nothing to potatos to eat while the landowners got the good stuff, and when the potato crops were blighted, landowners still insisted on their rent.

Should grocery stores think twice about putting potatos out?  What about when it's for something unrelated like Mr Potato Head.

Was it the fault of the slave owner/landlord or the crop?

Frankly, the Swastika comparison doesn't hold up.  There's no 'good' (or functional) use of a Swastika which is and always has been completely symbolic.

I can understand how someone who picked cotton would never want to see cotton again.  I can understand how someone whose family had that history might feel a certain way about cotton.  But we all feel a certain way about something.  I had a crappy summer job once packaging snaps (like for sewing) on an assembly line and I never want to see another snap again.  I don't expect a sewing supply store to listen to us snap packers though, I'll just look the other way.

I don't know, I can see both sides of this discussion.   I think both sides have valid points.  Evidently you cannot and you think it's fine to attack anyone who holds a different opinion.

That's what I hate about the politicized climate of this country (and evidently this board).  No one can have a discussion without resorting to name calling and insults anymore.

Stop. Please just stop before you dig yourself into an even bigger hole.

[pixy0stix]

I see we've entered the "but the Irish were repressed and indentured servants" portion of why the black people should just forget history.

[sandsonik]

Dec 14, 2014 19:01:41 GMT -5 katfco said:

Dec 14, 2014 12:07:21 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

1. They're not saying "avoid cotton in protest of the history of slavery." 
2. They're saying, "Cotton is a widely-recognized symbol of slavery, especially to African-Americans, since it was the primary crop in the South."
3. Are you seriously comparing their discomfort with being reminded of slavery to vegetarianism??
4. They're not the ones in denial, sweetie.
5. They're not suggesting boycotting cotton as a political statement. They're not even suggesting boycotting cotton. They're saying raw cotton has a personal and historical significance and openly displaying raw cotton is disturbing.
6. "there are more offensive things than people assuming you have a job. If that's the worst that's ever assumed about me" You do realize the whole issue with the cotton has to do with slavery and the effects of it--that it's not that they're mistaken for "having a job," but rather historically African-Americans are more likely to be assumed to be servants. And they're pretty tired of it, and it's only the tip of the iceberg regarding "the worst that's ever assumed" about them. 

Re: 6 - I was discussing the woman who was offended that she was mistaken for a store clerk.  A store clerk, not a servant. 
Not that there's anything wrong with being a servant, just like there's nothng wrong wth being a store clerk.  I found her offense offensive to store clerks, honestly.  She obviously considers store clerks to be very, very lowly.

And yes, that was sort of my point - that it's the tip of the iceberg of "the worst that's every been assumed" about them.  Look at all the times blacks get followed around stores like thieves, or have it implied that they can't afford to purchase the items there.  Now that's offensive.

At least if the author suggested boycotting cotton, it would mean she's true to her principles.  Otherwise it seems kind of two faced to say ' I hate cotton but I love wearing it.  I just don't want anything that reminds me that my clothes come from cotton.'  If it's disturbing, boycott it.

[sandsonik]

Dec 14, 2014 19:07:10 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I see we've entered the "but the Irish were repressed and indentured servants" portion of why the black people should just forget history.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Where the FUCK did I ever say the blacks should forget history?

Never.

Nobody should ever forget history.

And I wasn't comparing Irish indentured servants to slaves.  I wasn't even talking about indentured servitude.

I'm saying I blame the British, not the potato.  Making potatos magically disappear doesn't make the history disappear, and if it did, I would say NO, because I want to remember history.

[sandsonik]

Dec 14, 2014 19:12:49 GMT -5 @soudesafinado said:

Dec 14, 2014 19:01:48 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

I'm sorry you're incapable of responding without insulting me.  I didn't insult anyone and any attempts you make to increase my understanding are not likely to succeed when coupled with derision.

Would you like it if I were equally condescending and 'Let me see if I can explain this to you in a way you can understand:

You said 'marketing the commodity in a way that draws out the horrific history behind it's popularity, economic benefit, etc etc. (btw - all tied to slavery when cotton was stored in barrels and viewed raw) is a damn problem. ' but it wasn't marketed that way.  If there pictures of plantations and slaves in the field I would be the first to agree it was offensive and probably intentionally so.  But there weren't.  There was just cotton. 

If you saw a barrel of peanuts, a head of lettuce or a cannister or sugar, are you repulsed by the horrific symbolism, or do you look at the products for what they are?

No doubt many of my forefathers perished because of  cruel policies that left them nothing to potatos to eat while the landowners got the good stuff, and when the potato crops were blighted, landowners still insisted on their rent.

Should grocery stores think twice about putting potatos out?  What about when it's for something unrelated like Mr Potato Head.

Was it the fault of the slave owner/landlord or the crop?

Frankly, the Swastika comparison doesn't hold up.  There's no 'good' (or functional) use of a Swastika which is and always has been completely symbolic.

I can understand how someone who picked cotton would never want to see cotton again.  I can understand how someone whose family had that history might feel a certain way about cotton.  But we all feel a certain way about something.  I had a crappy summer job once packaging snaps (like for sewing) on an assembly line and I never want to see another snap again.  I don't expect a sewing supply store to listen to us snap packers though, I'll just look the other way.

I don't know, I can see both sides of this discussion.   I think both sides have valid points.  Evidently you cannot and you think it's fine to attack anyone who holds a different opinion.

That's what I hate about the politicized climate of this country (and evidently this board).  No one can have a discussion without resorting to name calling and insults anymore.

Your tone was pretty damn condescending in your post. Also, not reading all this because like I said earlier in the thread I AM TIRED OF GETTING OVER IT, LETTING GO AND MOVING ON. TIRED.

Sou, my post was not in response to you.

[tacosforlife]

I am always excited when the term "the blacks" makes an appearance in a thread. Clearly a sign of good things to come.

[katfco]

Dec 14, 2014 19:12:15 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Dec 14, 2014 19:01:41 GMT -5 katfco said:

1. They're not saying "avoid cotton in protest of the history of slavery." 
2. They're saying, "Cotton is a widely-recognized symbol of slavery, especially to African-Americans, since it was the primary crop in the South."
3. Are you seriously comparing their discomfort with being reminded of slavery to vegetarianism??
4. They're not the ones in denial, sweetie.
5. They're not suggesting boycotting cotton as a political statement. They're not even suggesting boycotting cotton. They're saying raw cotton has a personal and historical significance and openly displaying raw cotton is disturbing.
6. "there are more offensive things than people assuming you have a job. If that's the worst that's ever assumed about me" You do realize the whole issue with the cotton has to do with slavery and the effects of it--that it's not that they're mistaken for "having a job," but rather historically African-Americans are more likely to be assumed to be servants. And they're pretty tired of it, and it's only the tip of the iceberg regarding "the worst that's ever assumed" about them. 

Re: 6 - I was discussing the woman who was offended that she was mistaken for a store clerk.  A store clerk, not a servant. 
Not that there's anything wrong with being a servant, just like there's nothng wrong wth being a store clerk.  I found her offense offensive to store clerks, honestly.  She obviously considers store clerks to be very, very lowly.

And yes, that was sort of my point - that it's the tip of the iceberg of "the worst that's every been assumed" about them.  Look at all the times blacks get followed around stores like thieves, or have it implied that they can't afford to purchase the items there.  Now that's offensive.

At least if the author suggested boycotting cotton, it would mean she's true to her principles.  Otherwise it seems kind of two faced to say ' I hate cotton but I love wearing it.  I just don't want anything that reminds me that my clothes come from cotton.'  If it's disturbing, boycott it.

Being mistaken for working somewhere once or twice is odd, maybe even a little amusing. But constantly being mistaken as someone who is there to serve you becomes demoralizing. And when it happens to people who look like you on a regular basis, it represents a certain attitude that "this is the job people who look like you are supposed to/expected to have." 

[sandsonik]

I understand the history of cotton in this country and I'd be super leery of anything that romanticized the plantation days. Cotton next to cotton shirts doesn't seem like that to me.

I understand that others disagree. I still don't buy that as an excuse to call people names.

That's why people think there's group think going on this board. I respond with respectful comments to one person and get swarmed by four or five people who are in attack mode and suggest I must be an imbecile.

Well, alrighty then. Feel better about yourselves now?

Is this no longer a discussion board or is it now an echo chamber?

[sandsonik]

Dec 14, 2014 19:18:14 GMT -5 @soudesafinado said:

AND STOP SAYING "THE BLACKS!!"

I never fucking said 'The Blacks'

[sandsonik]

Dec 14, 2014 19:18:39 GMT -5 katfco said:

Dec 14, 2014 19:12:15 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Re: 6 - I was discussing the woman who was offended that she was mistaken for a store clerk.  A store clerk, not a servant. 
Not that there's anything wrong with being a servant, just like there's nothng wrong wth being a store clerk.  I found her offense offensive to store clerks, honestly.  She obviously considers store clerks to be very, very lowly.

And yes, that was sort of my point - that it's the tip of the iceberg of "the worst that's every been assumed" about them.  Look at all the times blacks get followed around stores like thieves, or have it implied that they can't afford to purchase the items there.  Now that's offensive.

At least if the author suggested boycotting cotton, it would mean she's true to her principles.  Otherwise it seems kind of two faced to say ' I hate cotton but I love wearing it.  I just don't want anything that reminds me that my clothes come from cotton.'  If it's disturbing, boycott it.

Being mistaken for working somewhere once or twice is odd, maybe even a little amusing. But constantly being mistaken as someone who is there to serve you becomes demoralizing. And when it happens to people who look like you on a regular basis, it represents a certain attitude that "this is the job people who look like you are supposed to/expected to have." 

I don't know, there were three people in this thread who said we have the same problem.  I doubt we look anything alike.  I don't find it demoralizing, I just shake my head at how doggedly stupid some people are.  Or how they think everyone is there to serve them.  Honestly, I have told people 'I don't work here' and STILL been asked to help them with something, or if I know where something is. If I know, I tell them, and if I can reach it, I reach it.

[tacosforlife]

Dec 14, 2014 19:25:47 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Dec 14, 2014 19:18:14 GMT -5 @soudesafinado said:

AND STOP SAYING "THE BLACKS!!"

I never fucking said 'The Blacks'

False.

Look at all the times blacks get followed around stores like thieves, or have it implied that they can't afford to purchase the items there.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Where the FUCK did I ever say the blacks should forget history?

[NitaX]

I keep coming in here trying to type a response, and I'm like - just WTMF. 

I don't know how to make this simple - but it's not the cotton - it's the symbolism for it. Like I said earlier - white folks taking family pictures in a cotton field isn't something I would do because I feel like I'm diminishing the people who were enslaved to pick it. I can't see how that's perplexing to anyone. We aren't going to escape cotton. Black folks know that. But, the image of it stacked up with stalks looking like props obviously created a visceral feeling to it. One that I as a black person can easily understand. Sitting in this thread telling people that their visceral response is unwarranted and out of place is just plain silly.

You don't get to tell people how to feel about an issue. One so closely tied to some very horrific shit in this nation. And, thanks to Pixy and Mx for pointing out who the hell you can actively boycott now. 

It's like you're still overlooking history here. Oh - that was 1860. For real tho? C'mon. Like Sue Sue said we don't tell people whose great-great- grandparents were Holocaust survivors - Oh that was 1940. You don't look at that lady and say - Oh, that wrapping paper design wasn't meant like that get over it.

So Real Talk - Why do we say this to Black Folks? Why is it SO imperative for Black Folks to just - in the words of Elsa - Let It Go? Is it because we're still doing some might fucked up shit to black folks and no one wants to own it? I'm just trying to figure it out.

[katfco]

Dec 14, 2014 19:28:59 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Dec 14, 2014 19:18:39 GMT -5 katfco said:

Being mistaken for working somewhere once or twice is odd, maybe even a little amusing. But constantly being mistaken as someone who is there to serve you becomes demoralizing. And when it happens to people who look like you on a regular basis, it represents a certain attitude that "this is the job people who look like you are supposed to/expected to have." 

I don't know, there were three people in this thread who said we have the same problem.  I doubt we look anything alike.  I don't find it demoralizing, I just shake my head at how doggedly stupid some people are.  Or how they think everyone is there to serve them.  Honestly, I have told people 'I don't work here' and STILL been asked to help them with something, or if I know where something is. If I know, I tell them, and if I can reach it, I reach it.

Again, it's not just about individual experiences; it's about a huge, long, historical pattern of treatment. 

[sandsonik]

Dec 14, 2014 19:08:50 GMT -5 Nugget T. Brain, The OG said:

......I'm sorry, did you just try and compare your crappy summer job packing snaps to slavery and picking cotton?

Why does it feel like you only show up on the board now to piss people off or get everyone in a tizzy?

No, I most certainly did not do that.  Read again.  I said that's why I might hate the sight of snaps, but I can't expect everyone else to feel the same way.

Did you just suggest that you picked cotton as a slave and that's why you hate the sight of cotton?

[NewOrleans]

Dec 14, 2014 19:01:48 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Dec 14, 2014 18:18:10 GMT -5 @smorriso said:

I'm sorry you're incapable of responding without insulting me.  I didn't insult anyone and any attempts you make to increase my understanding are not likely to succeed when coupled with derision.



Frankly, the Swastika comparison doesn't hold up.  There's no 'good' (or functional) use of a Swastika which is and always has been completely symbolic.

1. On the contrary.  You have insulted everyone here by dismissing their revulsion to the symbol of cotton.

2.  I take it you don't know the history of the swastika as a blessing in Eastern religions?