To worry most people won’t ever ‘get it’

[OverTheRainbow88]

All the marches, Protests etc and people still don’t seem to understand!

Will they ever?

I think it’s a bit insensitive, given the history of white people touching black womens hair and black girls being told their natural hair isn’t good enough somehow.

However I don’t think it was done on purpose, but now it’s been noticed just take that bit out of the books and stop selling the t shirts.

I also think that if black people find this offensive, then it’s offensive. It’s not up to white people to decide what’s racist and what’s not.

It’s not enough to plead ignorance after every fuck-up. Especially when there’s so many. This is why it’s important to view things from an anti-racist perspective, not just a neutral one.

Can I point out the original version was a white mermaid with the same caption?

It’s unfortunate but not convinced deliberately racist?

@BluebellForest836

A bunch of Karen’s just wanted a moan. People are so sensitive now

I hate the use of "Karen", but a) you don't even seem to understand the context in which "Karen" is usually used and b) you don't know how to use apostrophes. The question your post begs is what is the thing belonging to Karen that wanted a moan?

@isadorapolly

I think it’s a bit insensitive, given the history of white people touching black womens hair and black girls being told their natural hair isn’t good enough somehow.

However I don’t think it was done on purpose, but now it’s been noticed just take that bit out of the books and stop selling the t shirts.

I also think that if black people find this offensive, then it’s offensive. It’s not up to white people to decide what’s racist and what’s not.

Exactly. Yet when I said my Nigerian friend wasn't offended apparently I'm accused of saying she's speaking for all black people.

Except I'm just pointing out white people are outraged in black peoples behalf but not every black person is offended.

To me there are a few different issues:

The book in the first place - should it have been published? Is the book more or less acceptable because it is published in different versions?

Tesco selling the T-shirt - I think this was a massive oversight, the cover of the book has simply been printed on the t-shirt and no-one picked up on it. It should have been, but I am not sure it was done with intention.

There were lots of other books that could have been used - That's not my Unicorn for example which all round would have been a better choice.

I do hope that Usborne books perhaps consider withdrawing this book or at least changing the cover.

Oh dear, I got this book for my daughter as I wanted her to see that mythical mermaids could be all different races, not just white.

I really don't understand the cause for upset here. It's not saying 'She CAN'T be A mermaid, her hair is too fluffy' or 'I don't WANT her for my mermaid...' ! It's saying 'She's NOT my mermaid' - they recognise her as not being theirs, but it's not a bad thing - in the same way nobody's finding fault with the bunny whose tail is too fluffy, or the one whose eyes are too shiny. Literally no one is upset that real life rabbits with shiny eyes and fluffy tails are being discriminated against because while they recognize that those are lovely characteristics for bunnies to have, they understand that the author of 'That's not my bunny' has a rabbit without those particular attributes!!

Feminist (most likely white): A arsehole of a man said "Hello lovely lady, may I help you with your bags? They look heavy"

Others: wANkeR! MiSOgyNIst! I cAN carrY mY oWn BaGs, You SeXIst PiG! oH tHE micROaggreSSion We woMEn FaCE eVeRyDay!

Black person: I think saying that a black girl's hair is too fluffy (regardless of intention) is offensive because of the negative connotation regarding black people's hair, which black people have faced for generations.

Others: oH cAlm doWN! profESSionALLy oFFendED! HoW iS It oFFensiVE?! YoU'Re oNLy seEIng wHAt yOU wAnt tO sEE! plAYinG tHE RaCe caRD! StOP mAKIng eVERythinG aBOut rACe!

I think if you are familiar with the series of picture books ‘that’s not my rabbit, his tail is too fluffy’ ‘that’s not my rabbit, its eyes are too shiny’, you would realise this is not intended as racist at all.

They have similar adjectives in each book (fluffy, scratchy, shiny etc) as they are ‘feely’ books, and have limited fabrics to include.

Now that it’s been pointed out I think it’s right for it to be removed.

I don't think half of these posters have ever read one of these books before. I think fluffy is pretty much mentioned on all of them as there are only so many long standing fabrics you can add to a sensory book for babies I imagine.
Interested to hear what the offended people think should have been done instead:

• not added a black mermaid in the first place? (this is what all your complainers are heading for, making publishers too scared that they will somehow offend someone)

• changed the word fluffy? (what words could they have used instead of fluffy that wouldn't have offended you?)

Bit of side question, but what’s with adding lots of random capitals in sentences and words? I’ve seen it before but not sure what it’s supposed to convey (I feel old!)

[quote Tanith]"I think it's a case of just not thinking at Usborne (and, as PP said) a complete lack of diversity in their staff)."

What makes you say that? According to their diversity policy, they do far more than most to ensure a diverse staff:
usborne.com/about-us/who-we-are/promoting-diversity/[/quote]
They are not doing very well at the moment, though. I couldn't find much on who the editorial staff are etc, but what info I could find shows a majority of white staff.

usborne.com/about-us/
www.usbornebooksathome.co.uk/misc/about-us.aspx

@RyanBergarasTeeth

Also what happens with ameleoration in society? That will never happen because it seems any time black and white people have something like this used equally and putting them as the same somehow people will always use the past to refuse to change the future. Like this. The black and white mermaid are equal and have the exact same word used for them. A word with zero negative connotations in fact the word fluffy has positive connotations. So its racist as fuck to say oh no never ever refer to a black girls hair even in a positive/neutral/equal way to a white girls hair or else your a big racist.

I've read this thread and have strongly agreed with every point *@RyanBergarasTeeth made, this one the most, feels like Usborne can't do right for doing wrong thanks @RyanBergarasTeeth* for including picture proof of the ways this story has shown different mermaids for people to sea they've tried to be inclusive.

There are so many horrible things that happen in this world, and racism is abhorrent. However I do not get offended by this mermaid t-shirt. I can see how it could be deemed racist, but it wasn't intentional. I think sometimes people over-analyse and waste their time on trivial things.

There are bigger worse things happening right now. I got more upset today reading about plans by Indian Prime Minister to fell ancient forest for coal mining.

So trying to be inclusive now makes racism okay?!

No wonder the UK voted in an openly racist PM when so many people are open and proud about their racism. Its so sickening.

@alllthegearnoidea

I don't think half of these posters have ever read one of these books before. I think fluffy is pretty much mentioned on all of them as there are only so many long standing fabrics you can add to a sensory book for babies I imagine. Interested to hear what the offended people think should have been done instead:

• not added a black mermaid in the first place? (this is what all your complainers are heading for, making publishers too scared that they will somehow offend someone)

• changed the word fluffy? (what words could they have used instead of fluffy that wouldn't have offended you?)

It would be nice if when a person who isn’t white is included they aren’t including something racist alongside them.

Also, I've never understood why when "white people are outraged on black people's behalf", they get called names. Can't some white people be outraged on black people's behalf just as some aren't? Can't some able-bodied people be outraged on some disabled people's (or people with disabilities) behalf? Can't some men be outraged on women's behalf, just as others aren't?

Why are the white people who want to be on the side of (black people's) fight against racism doing something wrong? Isn't it the point of fighting injustice? Do you only have to be outraged when it's happening to you? Should they just shut up and look on then?

@itsgettingweird
There are plenty of white people on here screaming at other white people they are stupid and don't get it.
Maybe, but there are also black people on here saying why it is problematic, so one black woman telling you she isn't personally offended doesn't really make any difference to the point.

@cologne4711
Also not sure why Tesco is in trouble - there are millions of these books and they are sold anywhere that sells books. I suppose they'll now all have to be pulped.
Tesco isn't in trouble over the books. The issue was their stocking of the t-shirt. But they've dealt with it by not ordering any more. I'm sure they continued to sell their existing stock, so no loss to them. As a PP said, it would have made more sense for the t-shirt to have the 'right' mermaid on it (as in 'that's my mermaid...')

How do you know the mermaid is of African decent? The book doesn't state her heritage. She could be of any number of dark skinned races that don't have negative connotations placed on their hair.

Yep, it could have been ‘too long’, ‘too silky’, ‘too wavy’ but I suppose it’s Usbourne books that are to blame?

No it couldn't. You've clearly not read the books. The mentioned item is textured, the child then feels the texture of the mentioned item. Wavy and long arnt textures. Silky maybe, but a bit advanced for a pre school book.

@LuvMyFluffyFrizzyBushySoftAfro

Also, I've never understood why when "white people are outraged on black people's behalf", they get called names. Can't some white people be outraged on black people's behalf just as some aren't? Can't some able-bodied people be outraged on some disabled people's (or people with disabilities) behalf? Can't some men be outraged on women's behalf, just as others aren't?

Why are the white people who want to be on the side of (black people's) fight against racism doing something wrong? Isn't it the point of fighting injustice? Do you only have to be outraged when it's happening to you? Should they just shut up and look on then?

Because racists see white people are superior, a white person speaking out against racism damages their superiority.

Just as some men dislike men who speak out about sexism.

@Pickles89

I really don't understand the cause for upset here. It's not saying 'She CAN'T be A mermaid, her hair is too fluffy' or 'I don't WANT her for my mermaid...' ! It's saying 'She's NOT my mermaid' - they recognise her as not being theirs, but it's not a bad thing - in the same way nobody's finding fault with the bunny whose tail is too fluffy, or the one whose eyes are too shiny. Literally no one is upset that real life rabbits with shiny eyes and fluffy tails are being discriminated against because while they recognize that those are lovely characteristics for bunnies to have, they understand that the author of 'That's not my bunny' has a rabbit without those particular attributes!!

Dear god, do you really not get it? Fluffy bunnies? Please educate yourself.

www.teenvogue.com/story/a-brief-history-of-black-hair-politics-and-discrimination

Uggghh.

1. Intent isn’t the point. Sure, I agree that accidental offence shouldn’t result in individuals or corporations being subject to a total Twitter pile-on, but “the intention was diversity!” is not a free pass for poor judgment.

1. Anyone who doesn’t recognise the long history of Afro hair being deemed “too...” has some learning to do. Sure, some people of African descent will have happily avoided this, many won’t. The fact that mixed race child models with natural hair are currently popular does not cancel this out. The history and culture of Afro hair is so fucking fraught.

1. It seems a shame that Tesco chose that picture from the book, and not one of the more innocuous ones. (FWIW, I’m familiar with the book series but not this particular book, and I have a mixed race toddler. If I’d seen this top, with the brown-skinned mermaid and no dodgy crap about her hair being ‘too fluffy’, I’d have 100% bought it.)

1. Being aware of cultural issues eg judgments about what constitutes ‘good hair’ for black girls and women does not mean people are being racist by imposing different standards / suggesting that this page with a white mermaid is OK whilst with a black mermaid it’s a bit dubious.

1. Some black people considering this a non issue does not mean it is, definitively, a non issue!

1. You can simultaneously care about the fact that black men are aggressively over-policed, that black families are racially harassed while just going about their daily lives, and that this (exciting! infrequent!) instance of a brown-skinned character on children’s clothing is so utterly squandered with a tone-deaf “her hair is too fluffy” message. Imagine, I even care about misogyny and pollution and the stress our exam-obsessed curriculum places on our children, my head hasn’t exploded yet.

I would love Tesco to come back from this with a better comparable product. One that takes on board the issue, replaces the t shirt with a better bit of CSR box-ticking representation, makes them some money and gives our kids a chance to grow up less fucking ignorant white-as-default than too many of their parents.

@alllthegearnoidea

This is absolutely not racist at all. Stupids posts like this completely deflect from the real issues behind 'black lives matter' and make it all into a bit of a joke, which it is not at all.

Publishers are trying to be more inclusive and then ridiculous posts and articles like this completely ruin it. Two steps forward and one step back!

If the publishers are forced to issue an apology over this I will be so angry!

I agree with this poster, the OTT reaction over this is detracting from the real issues regarding racism and harming the “Black Lives Matter” cause. I read this series of books with my grandson and can’t see any racism in them. I wouldn’t let him read them if they were. Also don’t see the t-shirt racist either, it is inline with the books. I am not racist and don’t care whether someone is black, white or any other ethnicity. I care about “who they are” not “what they are.”

I did read the article, relating to the OP’s post, on “Mail Online.” There are 31 pages of comments after the article. Here’s a few examples of the comments:-

”The woman is just an attention seeking idiot, she really should take a step back and see what a fool she makes of herself.” 60 reactions, 59 agreeing, 1 disagreeing.

”for goodness sake .... end this madness” 69 reactions, 68 agreeing, 1 disagreeing.

”Beyond pathetic” 45 reactions, 44 agreeing,1 disagreeing.

”Tesco should not apologise. Ridiculous.” 65 reactions, 65 agreeing, 0 disagreeing.

”Biggest fools are Tesco for taking an notice of a deranged individual” 77 reactions, 77 agreeing, 0 disagreeing.

I didn’t need to search for these comments, in amongst those taking the other view. These were all taken from the most recent page and appear to be pretty unanimous. I know some will say that these comments are from those reading the Daily Mail, therefore obviously biased, but I think it shows the chasm between the differing viewpoints widening! I find it so sad that things like this are blown out of all proportion, and actually damage racial harmony.