Is cotton offensive to black people?

[katfco]

Dec 14, 2014 19:34:26 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

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?

So should Jewish people  of the current generation not be offended by the swastika?

[NitaX]

Dec 14, 2014 19:36:27 GMT -5 katfco said:

Dec 14, 2014 19:34:26 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

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?

So should Jewish people  of the current generation not be offended by the swastika?

Using the logic presented here, it looks like no.

[StrawberryBlondie]

By the way, you do know the swastika wasn't made up by the Nazis, right?

[sandsonik]

Dec 14, 2014 19:30:55 GMT -5 NitaX said:

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.

Ok, I'll have to think about the bolded.

It just seems like you're telling Brooks that they have to feel a certain way about cotton, and that everyone else should as well.

My thing about the potatos was not to say that the famine was equivalent to several hundred years of slavery; it was to bring up the comparision of should potatos not be displayed because of some horrific historical associations?

To my mind, it's not the crops fault, it's the exploiter's fault.

[sandsonik]

Dec 14, 2014 19:35:10 GMT -5 NewOrleans 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.



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? 

No, I am aware.  That's why I said it has always been symbolic, and not 'it has always been evil'.    It has no functional use; it is not a foodstuff or an energy source, it's a symbol only.

[pixy0stix]

Dec 14, 2014 19:14:32 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

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.

Lol. Right.

[sandsonik]

Dec 14, 2014 19:42:02 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Dec 14, 2014 19:14:32 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

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.

Lol. Right.

Why would I lie?

I believe there should be reparations. This country was built on the backs of African Americans and they not only didn't get their fair share, they were prevented from moving forward for the next 100+ years.   I'm not for sweeping history under the carpet.

[NewOrleans]

Dec 14, 2014 19:41:15 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Dec 14, 2014 19:35:10 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

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? 

No, I am aware.  That's why I said it has always been symbolic, and not 'it has always been evil'.    It has no functional use; it is not a foodstuff or an energy source, it's a symbol only.

You said there was no "good" use.  You added functional.  ::shrug::

Nonetheless, I'll be over here getting over everything like a good girl and not attaching connotations to anything.

[NitaX]

Dec 14, 2014 19:39:06 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Dec 14, 2014 19:30:55 GMT -5 NitaX said:

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.

Ok, I'll have to think about the bolded.

It just seems like you're telling Brooks that they have to feel a certain way about cotton, and that everyone else should as well.

My thing about the potatos was not to say that the famine was equivalent to several hundred years of slavery; it was to bring up the comparision of should potatos not be displayed because of some horrific historical associations?

To my mind, it's not the crops fault, it's the exploiter's fault.

But you can tell a person when they have offended you by an action or a statement, which is what the writer did. It's obvious that white folks don't see cotton in the same light that I do. That's why I keep using the photo example. Because if a photographer says to me "Oh I have a perfect spot" and it's a cotton field - I as a consumer can say - No. I do not wish to do a shoot here because my great-great grandmother was cheated by the landowner when she sharecropped. Or I can say - my ancestors picked cotton and it makes me uncomfortable to take pictures here. I'm entitled to say that something makes me uncomfortable. You are trying to say that she doesn't get to make that comparison. 

Whether you view it that way or not, I can't drive by rows of cotton and not think of the day when slaves picked it. I can't turn that image off. Because it's part of my culture. Potatoes are something that are routinely sold in stores for food. Cotton isn't placed in a storefront like that. It is a material that ultimately is transformed into something else. That's the difference between the two.

[mx27]

I believe everyone is entitled to their feelings. My issue is with the author presuming to know how all black people feel about the sight of raw cotton. Just because she finds it unsettling doesn't mean that all black people do or that all black people believe raw cotton is the equivalent of a swastika.

[sandsonik]

Dec 14, 2014 19:46:06 GMT -5 NitaX said:

Dec 14, 2014 19:39:06 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Ok, I'll have to think about the bolded.

It just seems like you're telling Brooks that they have to feel a certain way about cotton, and that everyone else should as well.

My thing about the potatos was not to say that the famine was equivalent to several hundred years of slavery; it was to bring up the comparision of should potatos not be displayed because of some horrific historical associations?

To my mind, it's not the crops fault, it's the exploiter's fault.

But you can tell a person when they have offended you by an action or a statement, which is what the writer did. It's obvious that white folks don't see cotton in the same light that I do. That's why I keep using the photo example. Because if a photographer says to me "Oh I have a perfect spot" and it's a cotton field - I as a consumer can say - No. I do not wish to do a shoot here because my great-great grandmother was cheated by the landowner when she sharecropped. Or I can say - my ancestors picked cotton and it makes me uncomfortable to take pictures here. I'm entitled to say that something makes me uncomfortable. You are trying to say that she doesn't get to make that comparison. 

Whether you view it that way or not, I can't drive by rows of cotton and not think of the day when slaves picked it. I can't turn that image off. Because it's part of my culture. Potatoes are something that are routinely sold in stores for food. Cotton isn't placed in a storefront like that. It is a material that ultimately is transformed into something else. That's the difference between the two.

No, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you can't think of that.  If that's the way it came off, I'm sorry.  It's only natural to consider that history.

But I'm sorry, the difference between whether it's a material that's ultimately transformed into something else is splitting hairs to me.

And cotton wasn't the only crop that slaves raised and those are displayed in their natural form today.

[katfco]

Dec 14, 2014 19:44:53 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Dec 14, 2014 19:42:02 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Lol. Right.

Why would I lie?

I believe there should be reparations. This country was built on the backs of African Americans and they not only didn't get their fair share, they were prevented from moving forward for the next 100+ years.   I'm not for sweeping history under the carpet.

honest question: then why are you so resistant to the idea that, for many people, raw cotton is a symbol of that history, and therefore disturbing when used in such a trite manner? Why do you keep implying they flint have the right to be offended by that symbol if their shared histories?

[NewOrleans]

Fix it Jesus.

[sandsonik]

Dec 14, 2014 19:52:19 GMT -5 @soudesafinado said:

This thread didn't get to 8 pages because the "group" was thinking the same thing. You are just mad because nobody agrees with your particular opinion and that, to me, is reason enough for you to reconsider your point of view. Or not. I don't really care.

Also I'm going to do this to the next person who uses "group think"

For what it's worth, I was never mad until some person came on all condescending about "how about I explain this to you in monosyllables like you're an imbecile" and got cheered on for it.

Bet that would piss you off too.

[NewOrleans]

Dec 14, 2014 19:59:35 GMT -5 Nugget T. Brain, The OG said:

Dec 14, 2014 19:47:19 GMT -5 mx27 said:

I believe everyone is entitled to their feelings. My issue is with the author presuming to know how all black people feel about the sight of raw cotton. Just because she finds it unsettling doesn't mean that all black people do or that all black people believe raw cotton is the equivalent of a swastika.

...I don't think ALL black people need to be offended for something to be offensive. Even if just some black people are offended that, in my opinion, should be enough to at least give your advertising serious thought. I do not care for this idea that all *insert here* have to be bothered by something before we can consider it offensive.

Right.  By PP's logic, then the Natives suing the Redskins should just stand down since they don't speak for all Natives.

[NewOrleans]

Dec 14, 2014 19:52:19 GMT -5 @soudesafinado said:

Also I'm going to do this to the next person who uses "group think"

Thank. You.

[sandsonik]

Dec 14, 2014 19:50:22 GMT -5 @smorriso 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.

One, your post is equally insulting. I just don't jump in on conversations on 10 when I wasn't provoked to that 10. Just because you're wording it differently doesn't make what you're saying any less offensive.

Two, I'm black and Irish so if I saw some bullshit potato display in a place where Irish folks were once killed and subjected to slavery, then yes. I'd have a fucking problem.

I'm starting to see why you're uncapable of being a reasonable person in this situation as the thinly veiled marketing is about as bad as your apathy is regarding the offense.

You come in here and get hella mad when people are talking about old folks when no on gas a clue what you're dealing with. Once you explained to people about your personal situation, at least had the decency to try to be sensitive to your hard situation. You have 200+ replies explaining thoroughly why this shit is offensive and you're lke, eh shrug. Those crazy CEPers.

So forgive me if I'm kind of like fuck it on playing nice with your feelings and insults. Clearly you're not getting it and one syllable or not you can't make someone understand who is willfully being obtuse.

Show me where I said "those crazy CEPers".  Because I'm trying to have an in depth, respectful and yes, CIVIL, conversation.

But as to your example, I could also give 200+ thoughtful replies why the way people talk about old people is offensive here, but it wouldn't change your mind. Generalizations about race, gender or sexual preference are abhorrent but generalizations based on age are completely acceptable here.  I don't apologize for fighting against that ignorance.  It shocks me that it's so prevalent here.

With cotton, if I felt that the cotton display was a statement about race, I would find it abhorrent.  If it was in another venue than next to a display of cotton shirts, I would object.  As it is, I find it a bit odd, but believe it was decorative and supposed to illustrate the natural (and perhaps local?) nature of the material.

Around here it's pussy willow displays, or corn stalks in the fall which make no sense whatsoever.

[gpw]

and my tutor comes back in 10 minutes!  I don't want to do accounting anymore!! 

[NitaX]

Dec 14, 2014 19:54:25 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Dec 14, 2014 19:46:06 GMT -5 NitaX said:

But you can tell a person when they have offended you by an action or a statement, which is what the writer did. It's obvious that white folks don't see cotton in the same light that I do. That's why I keep using the photo example. Because if a photographer says to me "Oh I have a perfect spot" and it's a cotton field - I as a consumer can say - No. I do not wish to do a shoot here because my great-great grandmother was cheated by the landowner when she sharecropped. Or I can say - my ancestors picked cotton and it makes me uncomfortable to take pictures here. I'm entitled to say that something makes me uncomfortable. You are trying to say that she doesn't get to make that comparison. 

Whether you view it that way or not, I can't drive by rows of cotton and not think of the day when slaves picked it. I can't turn that image off. Because it's part of my culture. Potatoes are something that are routinely sold in stores for food. Cotton isn't placed in a storefront like that. It is a material that ultimately is transformed into something else. That's the difference between the two.

No, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you can't think of that.  If that's the way it came off, I'm sorry.  It's only natural to consider that history.

But I'm sorry, the difference between whether it's a material that's ultimately transformed into something else is splitting hairs to me.

And cotton wasn't the only crop that slaves raised and those are displayed in their natural form today.

It's not splitting hairs. Tell me where you - random consumer go to buy raw cotton? What store do you roll into daily and just scoop up cotton like "Yes, I'll take two bales of cotton" and then go home to weave it up and make that shirt you always wanted?

WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYY back on page 1, I said that you can't think slavery and not immediately cotton. It is the singular image that first comes to mind when discussing slavery. THEN summer posted an Atlantic article about ... COTTON. I am not discounting tobacco or other main crops. I'm talking this image when I hit up Google:




It is the very first image that comes up under Slavery in the South. After that, there are 11 more images of slaves picking cotton. And this cartoon:



So, tell me again, why is this visceral response to seeing cotton incorrect?

[sandsonik]

Dec 14, 2014 20:00:44 GMT -5 Nugget T. Brain, The OG said:

Dec 14, 2014 19:59:03 GMT -5 @soudesafinado said:

And I said earlier YOUR post that Smo was responding to came across as condescending to me so I'm guessing it read that way to her too and set her off.

Ditto.

I apologize to the both of you then.  My purpose was not to condescend or insult either of you so my post failed.   Shake hands?

[tacosforlife]

YES! We've reached the "you hate old people" portion of the thread. I KNEW IT WAS COMING!

[gpw]

Dec 14, 2014 19:59:35 GMT -5 Nugget T. Brain, The OG said:

Dec 14, 2014 19:47:19 GMT -5 mx27 said:

I believe everyone is entitled to their feelings. My issue is with the author presuming to know how all black people feel about the sight of raw cotton. Just because she finds it unsettling doesn't mean that all black people do or that all black people believe raw cotton is the equivalent of a swastika.

...I don't think ALL black people need to be offended for something to be offensive. Even if just some black people are offended that, in my opinion, should be enough to at least give your advertising serious thought. I do not care for this idea that all *insert here* have to be bothered by something before we can consider it offensive.

Just like one person does not speak for a whole group.  Just because ONE Viking fan (my H) thinks Favre only had to slide to make it to the Superbowl and was extremely vocal about it, doesn't mean that ALL Viking fans feel that way.  

I've been studying dang near all day.  I'm a little punchy.  

[katfco]

Dec 14, 2014 20:07:48 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Dec 14, 2014 19:50:22 GMT -5 @smorriso said:

One, your post is equally insulting. I just don't jump in on conversations on 10 when I wasn't provoked to that 10. Just because you're wording it differently doesn't make what you're saying any less offensive.

Two, I'm black and Irish so if I saw some bullshit potato display in a place where Irish folks were once killed and subjected to slavery, then yes. I'd have a fucking problem.

I'm starting to see why you're uncapable of being a reasonable person in this situation as the thinly veiled marketing is about as bad as your apathy is regarding the offense.

You come in here and get hella mad when people are talking about old folks when no on gas a clue what you're dealing with. Once you explained to people about your personal situation, at least had the decency to try to be sensitive to your hard situation. You have 200+ replies explaining thoroughly why this shit is offensive and you're lke, eh shrug. Those crazy CEPers.

So forgive me if I'm kind of like fuck it on playing nice with your feelings and insults. Clearly you're not getting it and one syllable or not you can't make someone understand who is willfully being obtuse.

With cotton, if I felt that the cotton display was a statement about race, I would find it abhorrent.  If it was in another venue than next to a display of cotton shirts, I would object.  As it is, I find it a bit odd, but believe it was decorative and supposed to illustrate the natural (and perhaps local?) nature of the material.

Around here it's pussy willow displays, or corn stalks in the fall which make no sense whatsoever.

So does it only count as abhorrent if there was intent? Couldn't there have been unintentional offense and it still be something that needed correction and discussion? 

[NewOrleans]

Dec 14, 2014 20:07:48 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Dec 14, 2014 19:50:22 GMT -5 @smorriso said:

Show me where I said "those crazy CEPers".  Because I'm trying to have an in depth, respectful and yes, CIVIL, conversation.

I can't give you an example of the first.  Maybe the groupthink garbage.

But I can tell you where it went south for me in your post on page 7:

"some century old stigma"

That smacks of "get over it" and pretty much assured me that you weren't looking for or hearing dialogue.

[NitaX]

And again - this thread is about how we, other black folks of CEP, can understand the writer's point. All we've done is explain why it's not a leap to be offended. And the reason is that for US - we can't take those images and compartmentalize them.

[NitaX]

Dec 14, 2014 20:12:33 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Dec 14, 2014 20:07:48 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Show me where I said "those crazy CEPers".  Because I'm trying to have an in depth, respectful and yes, CIVIL, conversation.

I can't give you an example of the first.  Maybe the groupthink garbage.

But I can tell you where it went south for me in your post on page 7:

"some century old stigma"

That smacks of "get over it" and pretty much assured me that you weren't looking for or hearing dialogue.

Yup.

[sandsonik]

Dec 14, 2014 20:11:03 GMT -5 tacosforlife said:

YES! We've reached the "you hate old people" portion of the thread. I KNEW IT WAS COMING!

Did you know that I wouldn't be the person who brought it up?

Be fair now.

[mx27]

Dec 14, 2014 19:59:35 GMT -5 Nugget T. Brain, The OG said:

Dec 14, 2014 19:47:19 GMT -5 mx27 said:

I believe everyone is entitled to their feelings. My issue is with the author presuming to know how all black people feel about the sight of raw cotton. Just because she finds it unsettling doesn't mean that all black people do or that all black people believe raw cotton is the equivalent of a swastika.

...I don't think ALL black people need to be offended for something to be offensive. Even if just some black people are offended that, in my opinion, should be enough to at least give your advertising serious thought. I do not care for this idea that all *insert here* have to be bothered by something before we can consider it offensive.

I never said anything about whether it is or should be offensive.  People have a right to feel however they want to.

All I said was that she presumes to know how an entire group of people feel about raw cotton, which she can't possibly know.

[pixy0stix]

Dec 14, 2014 20:18:33 GMT -5 mx27 said:

Dec 14, 2014 19:59:35 GMT -5 Nugget T. Brain, The OG said:

...I don't think ALL black people need to be offended for something to be offensive. Even if just some black people are offended that, in my opinion, should be enough to at least give your advertising serious thought. I do not care for this idea that all *insert here* have to be bothered by something before we can consider it offensive.

I never said anything about whether it is or should be offensive.  People have a right to feel however they want to.

All I said was that she presumes to know how an entire group of people feel about raw cotton, which she can't possibly know.

She CAN possibly know because of shared history. It's as simple as that.

[tacosforlife]

Dec 14, 2014 20:14:31 GMT -5 NitaX said:

And again - this thread is about how we, other black folks of CEP, can understand the writer's point. All we've done is explain why it's not a leap to be offended. And the reason is that for US - we can't take those images and compartmentalize them.

Yeah, I think it's not surprising that a lot of us whiteys didn't immediately go there.

H and I were talking about white privilege the other day (not even joking, LOL). I told him about @soudesafinado always taking her receipt in her hand instead of in the bag. I said, "I never thought of that. Because I never had to."

This strikes me as similar. White folks may not have seen the display the same way. White folks may not have the same visceral response to the display. But when told how it makes black folks feel, saying, "Geez, easily offended much?" seems like an...insensitive...response. Which is why the store took down the damn display.