L'Oreal Found Guilty of Racism.

[Wolfman]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/sto...ticle_continue

[Drolefille]

Racim in France is terrible. I don't know what they're going to do, but I'm afraid it's going to boil down to a civil war if they don't have or get a strong enough leadership to make changes. The troubles they had in the fall of 2005 will be magnified. It's scary really.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Racim in France is terrible. I don't know what they're going to do, but I'm afraid it's going to boil down to a civil war if they don't have or get a strong enough leadership to make changes. The troubles they had in the fall of 2005 will be magnified. It's scary really.

The colonialist mentality is still strong in French society, except now the colonies are migrating there for economic opportunities and they don't want them there.Thus the faux solution is to "ghettoize" them as a permanent foreign underclass with frightful consequences.

[UGAalum94]

I'm with you both that the racism and colonial attitudes of the traditional European French cause the majority of the problem.

But don't you think the religion of the minority group also contributes to some self-ghettoizing behavior? Some of the tension that may have its roots in economic issues seems to manifest itself as a rejection of the secularism and unifying culture of the French state, which then compounds the problem.

ETA: I don't mean in the L'Oreal case. That's pretty straight up discrimination based on race and ethnicity, and the descriptions from the people who had to hire for the campaign make it pretty open and shut.

I wonder, though, when you do actually have a particular product generally aimed at one ethnicity, like say products designed especially for African American hair, like the Cream of Nature line for example, would it be racist to reject white models? L'Oreal wasn't dealing specifically with a line for the pigment challenged, so there's no way it applies in that case, but it's kind of interesting to think about.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

I'm with you both that the racism and colonial attitudes of the traditional European French cause the majority of the problem.

But don't you think the religion of the minority group also contributes to some self-ghettoizing behavior? Some of the tension that may have its roots in economic issues seems to manifest itself as a rejection of the secularism and unifying culture of the French state, which then compounds the problem.

ETA: I don't mean in the L'Oreal case. That's pretty straight up discrimination based on race and ethnicity, and the descriptions from the people who had to hire for the campaign make it pretty open and shut.

I wonder, though, when you do actually have a particular product generally aimed at one ethnicity, like say products designed especially for African American hair, like the Cream of Nature line for example, would it be racist to reject white models? L'Oreal wasn't dealing specifically with a line for the pigment challenged, so there's no way it applies in that case, but it's kind of interesting to think about.

That may be so but that's the long term cost of colonialist policies that have a very definite cultural construct to French identity and citizenship and you want to siphon off the resources of the colony and then not not want to deal with the economic (and cultural) ramifications regarding the emigration of peoples from the colonies.

In terms of marketing in a so-called segmented market like the African American one in the cosmetic and hair care industry,the types of phenotypes one is dealing with run from very dark skin to very fair skin. If you've ever seen the models for the Ebony Fashion Show, they always have a diversity of models that represent the diversity of shades and features (European to African) in the community.African Americans arfe a mixed people, but the issue here is the cultural (ie, racial) component that non-white models represent in the society. This has to do with French identity as being "white." Look, Mr. Sarkozy is not French by nationality but he is white. And how ironic it is that the child of "foreigners" is one who trumpets the conservative French views and becomes the leader of the nation struggling with this issue.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

I wonder, though, when you do actually have a particular product generally aimed at one ethnicity, like say products designed especially for African American hair, like the Cream of Nature line for example, would it be racist to reject white models?

So products like Prell and Wella Balsam are marketed to African American women who model use of those products?

Only Pantene has specifically formulated products for any minority haircare. Only Covergirl products have actually diversified in its marketting campaign. Maybelline barely has color. And every now and then does Revelon do a thing or two. However, ever since the 1980's since Revelon said stuff to the African American community, no African American hairstylists will noticeably use or purchase their products in the form of an active boycott.

So, use of Afro Sheen owned formerly owned by Ultra but now owned by Maybelline, rarely has caucasian models in Ebony or Jet advertising their products. In fact, I do not see much Afro-Sheen advertisements. I see more Bonner Brothers and Pink.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

So products like Prell and Wella Balsam are marketed to African American women who model use of those products?

Only Pantene has specifically formulated products for any minority haircare. Only Covergirl products have actually diversified in its marketting campaign. Maybelline barely has color. And every now and then does Revelon do a thing or two. However, ever since the 1980's since Revelon said stuff to the African American community, no African American hairstylists will noticeably use or purchase their products in the form of an active boycott.

So, use of Afro Sheen owned formerly owned by Ultra but now owned by Maybelline, rarely has caucasian models in Ebony or Jet advertising their products. In fact, I do not see much Afro-Sheen advertisements. I see more Bonner Brothers and Pink.

I didn't mean to suggest that the marketing focus only ran one way or to accuse companies that marketed to African Americans of anything that whites weren't doing too. I chose the case of Cream of Nature because there is a tighter connection between the benefits of the product and the hair type it's used on (although I think it'd actually be good for a lot of white people's hair too).

When you start talking about how Prell and Wella Balsam, Revlon, L'Oreal do things, how they market the product may not actually be a reflection of the needs of the people buying it. Think about how few shampoo ads ever include men although most of them are using shampoo too.

It's only been relatively recently that I can remember seeing ads addressing differences in hair texture for "white" hair. For most of my life, one would have thought that only white people who needed shampoo had hair like Cindy Crawford.

My point I guess, as much as I had one, is that although what L'Oreal did in this case was clearly discriminatory in terms of well qualified sales people being turned away from employment unrelated to race, cosmetic marketing is likely to be more racially focused than most product lines. Does that make this kind of advertising also racist and discriminatory? Or is it acceptable for Cover Girl to just sell to whites if that's the business they want to be in and it's profitable?

What was it that Revlon said to trigger the boycott?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

That may be so but that's the long term cost of colonialist policies that have a very definite cultural construct to French identity and citizenship and you want to siphon off the resources of the colony and then not not want to deal with the economic (and cultural) ramifications regarding the emigration of peoples from the colonies.

Actually, what I think is so interesting is the French hope that essential French identity (the cultural construct, as you put it) was so powerful that it could be wholly transfered to former Colonial subjects.

When you contrast the French Post-Colonial attitude with any other former colonial power, France seemed to make a much stronger effort at being race neutral and egalitarian in terms of full citizenship for the citizens of former colonies.

(Can you imagine Brazilians or Angolans attempting to live in the suburbs outside of Lisbon with the expectation of financial prosperity or citizenship?)

But France seemed to think that being French was powerful enough that it would override a person's identity as a North African Muslim (or any other identity). It's kind of beautiful this faith in transcendent Frenchness, but because of the failure of their better post-colonial efforts, they confront contemporary domestic issues that other former colonial powers who just shut the door when they left never had to face.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

I didn't mean to suggest that the marketing focus only ran one way or to accuse companies that marketed to African Americans of anything that whites weren't doing too. I chose the case of Cream of Nature because there is a tighter connection between the benefits of the product and the hair type it's used on (although I think it'd actually be good for a lot of white people's hair too).

When you start talking about how Prell and Wella Balsam, Revlon, L'Oreal do things, how they market the product may not actually be a reflection of the needs of the people buying it. Think about how few shampoo ads ever include men although most of them are using shampoo too.

It's only been relatively recently that I can't remember ever seeing ads addresses differences in hair texture for "white" hair. For most of my life, one would have thought that only white people who needed shampoo had hair like Cindy Crawford.

Thank you for your explanation. The fact that there actually ARE products for people who have "textured" hair to clean it is amazing overall. Most of the time, people with natural textures have been ignored and were essentially unmarketable.

Moreover, we know this is the "cosmoceutical" industry. It is all about looks, fashion and trends. When it is trendy to have silky smooth blonded hair, guess what, folks will buy it, weave it, and straighten their hair to be that way. But, when folks have shaved heads--guess what?!?

My point I guess, as much as I had one, is that although what L'Oreal did in this case was clearly discriminatory in terms of well qualified sales people being turned away from employment unrelated to race, cosmetic marketing is likely to be more racially focused than most product lines. Does that make this kind of advertising also racist and discriminatory? Or is it acceptable for Cover Girl to just sell to whites if that's the business they want to be in and it's profitable?

What was it that Revlon said to trigger the boycott?

In the past, advertising has been one the most sexist, racist and discriminatory kind of business. People have studied these psychological effects on women and girls. The definition of beauty, body image and femininity by beauty industry advertising is what numerous women's groups fight constantly. Only Dove has been the first to step up to that corporate responsibility. And Self magazine closely helps women improve their self-esteem. What L'Oreal did is wrong was be biased against people in its own country who are of color. I think it was due to ethnicity that had to do with the French preoccupation of various ethnic groups. The issue is, the French would rarely be overtly racist to you or me for that matter, but they will be to fellow Africans and Asians because I have seen it personally.

Also, I think that these kinds of businesses would be stupid if they ignored ethnic diversity. Beauty product catering to diverse cultures is a $2 billion dollar industry. If a make up producer does not get into this factor, they would be totally losing that market. The biggest market is the Asian one. Mary Kay Cosmetics is already way ahead of the curve. The next one is MAX, Clinque and maybe Perscriptives. Most of the companies are scrambling to get the undertones correctly. But, Mary Kay sells a mixed colored blend yourself powdered the foundation... Most ethnic groups are snorting this stuff up because it very difficult to get the right blend. Stuff can be purchased off the shelf, but it hard to get it right.

The STORY I heard was that Revlon said that their Realistic Revlon relaxer products are far superior than any other relaxer products made by anyone. They tried to corner the market on relaxers, but that pissed of the African American beauticians that use the products. Personally, as someone that uses the products, I like "Hawaiian relaxers", then Affirm products and Mizani. The last one I like is Realistic. But the way my hair feels after the "Hawaiian" and maybe the Mizani that is ironically owned by L'Oreal, has worked the best on my hair.

[Taualumna]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

The colonialist mentality is still strong in French society, except now the colonies are migrating there for economic opportunities and they don't want them there.Thus the faux solution is to "ghettoize" them as a permanent foreign underclass with frightful consequences.

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

I'm with you both that the racism and colonial attitudes of the traditional European French cause the majority of the problem.

But don't you think the religion of the minority group also contributes to some self-ghettoizing behavior? Some of the tension that may have its roots in economic issues seems to manifest itself as a rejection of the secularism and unifying culture of the French state, which then compounds the problem.

Definitely more in France/French speaking societies than British. Herouxville, a small town in Quebec adopted a "declaration" stating that everyone had to "fit in" with what the town considered "normal." Most were directed at more traditional cultures, especially those from the middle east and south Asia (e.g. stating that kids can't take weapons, including those for religious ceremonies to school, that boys and girls can't be separated in public pools, etc...). But at the same time, one of the latest "Mariannes," considered a symbol of France, was non-white. As for the British, I can only speak from a Hong Kong Chinese perspective, but I don't really see any unsuccessful immigrants from Hong Kong, despite it being a former colony. Most Chinese in any English speaking country seem to fit into so-called middle class society pretty well, and unlikely to see rebellion.

On self-segregation: Yeah, I think sometimes, people just don't *WANT* to fit in and may criticize those who do. There are plenty of new immigrants in Canada who have no interest in even learning/hearing about what many other Canadians see as, well "Canadian." If they only watch TV on channels in their own language, buy DVDs in their language/culture, read newspapers in their language/culture and refuse to learn about anything else and consider that "outside" culture foreign and corrupt, then there are issues. We have it here in Toronto. I'm sure it's the same in the US and other countries.

I once worked with a (Canadian born) Muslim girl of South Asian descent who was very upset to find out that another co-worker also Muslim and of South Asian (but didn't come to Canada until high school) descent dates, smokes and drinks (it wasn't any of Girl #1's business to begin with). She was also surprised to find out that other immigrant cultures whom are often seen as "traditional" really aren't. She rolled her eyes when she found out that neither my parents nor a co-worker's parents (who is also of Chinese descent) had an arranged marriage and that my maternal grandmother's young womanhood was probably as Carrie Bradshaw-esque as you can get in WWII Macau (though Poh Poh was not a columnist but a bookkeeper in a shop)...except my grandfather was definitely NOT a Big. More like Aidan, but not really...

Things like this might get better though. 100 years ago, people thought Chinese people were really weird and even enacted laws preventing Chinese (and other Asian) immigration. Today, while some still find Chinese weird/odd, it seems that most Chinese fit in with what the west considers "normal," even if they are new to the country. Maybe in a couple of decades things will change for other cultures too.

[Wolfman]

I'm not an expert on these matters but I know that the British built a strong educational system and cultural infrastructure in their colonies that was a unifiying factor in the colonies, which garnered some allegiance, as an economic and cultural springboard for some. I don't think the same holds true for the French in their colonies.This hearkens me back to the Franz Fanon and the Negritude movement. I saw an excellent, thought-provoking film a few years ago, "Chocolat," not the Johnny Depp and Juliette Binoche one, but a 1988 French one about the tensions in the household of a colonial adminstrator in French Cameroon concerning racial/colonial issues raised in this thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolat_%281988_film%29

[AKA_Monet]

Tauluama--

Interesting the Europe and Canada are having this kind problem or issues.

I think most folks from the US understand the sentiment, but there were too many people that died to change it. And we had it tied back to our US Declaration of Independence and Constitution as adjusted to literally "forced" us to reconcile what we see.

That is not to say self-segregation does not occur. But we will be the first to question it. The US government has literally re-ignited the flames of segregation on its rulings. Well, I know some folks who also burned down LA in 1992... What are they going to get labeled as today? Terrorists? I just know that the US is going to have to be prepared for that--people United will be defeated.

[Wolfman]

In a related topic that bears some examination since it involves racism in the colonial Francophone world and how it has impacted the contemporary scene. The '30s comic French series book "Les Adventures de Tintin: Tintin au Congo ("Tintin in the Congo"), whose characters first appeared in a Belgian newspaper 'Le Vingtieme Siecle' ("The 20th Century") in 1929, has recently sparked controversy in Great Britain, being declared racist. In rsponse, sales of the book have skyrocketed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070714...n_070714083801

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

In a related topic that bears some examination since it involves racism in the colonial Francophone world and how it has impacted the contemporary scene. The '30s comic French series book "Les Adventures de Tintin: Tintin au Congo ("Tintin in the Congo"), whose characters first appeared in a Belgian newspaper 'Le Vingtieme Siecle' ("The 20th Century") in 1929, has recently sparked controversy in Great Britain, being declared racist. In rsponse, sales of the book have skyrocketed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070714...n_070714083801

I recall reading some Tintin as a kid, and maybe even watching some on TV, I don't remember picking up negative racial themes in it. Certainly doesn't mean they're not there, but it started in the 30's! Little Orphan Annie's comics are right up there in terms of racism. Sometimes you have to read older material in the context of the times in which they were written.

(I suspect people are buying them because a) they read them when they were younger and forgot about them until the first newstory and b) they're afraid they'll go out of print)