Who cares about Clicks’ racism, and why should we care about them?

Here we find ourselves again, a marketing blunder on the higher end of the racism scale.

How did it happen? Who signed off? Is it an indication that there are not sufficient black people in the mix?

The first two questions remain up for speculation, but the intriguing argument is that, had there been more black representation in the decision-making structure, this wouldn’t have happened. That’s a fine example of poor reasoning and arrogant imposition on peoples’ agency.

It’s also no less racist than “all black people look the same” to claim that all “black people should think and feel the same”.

Sure! It is important to read the room and on a professional level. Any marketing professional in 2020 should have a “will this stir up South African racial controversy?” litmus test, regardless of skin tone.

We have, however, learned that marketing people are weirdly un-savvy when it comes to picking up the negativity in the zeitgeist.

The H&M monkey sweatshirt of two years ago was rough and it’s not just a South African issue. Five years ago, Bud Light in the USA went through five levels of signing off to come up with the rapey slogan: “The perfect beer for removing ‘No’ from your vocabulary.”

Yeah, there may be nothing legally wrong with it but you would expect that the people who are tasked, professionally, with marketing would have some form of grounding in the quality of empathy. It should be clear to them that they’re not trying to walk a legal line but rather gain favour with an audience. Apparently not in many cases.

It is, however, this “nothing legally wrong” statement that requires attention, because though causing offence is not a criminal offence, when the undertones are racist, even unintentionally so, something needs to be done.

Surprisingly, Clicks was denied court protection in its urgent application against the EFF protests and had to endure shutdowns and, on occasion, petrol bombing.

Of course, the latter is a clear violation of the law. Not that I think many of the protestors are concerned about that at the moment.

What it also is, is an indication that those driving the protest don’t trust the law to protect them, and would rather take justice into their own hands. If the H&M thing taught us anything in light of these new developments, it’s that shutdowns aren’t exactly effective for curing racism.

If only they had access to parliament to put some bills in motion… oh wait.

The Human Rights Commission, if called in, will probably issue some form of fine, which Clicks shareholders are probably shielded from through insurance so all in all, it seems that the law is ineffective in granting protestors what they want.

So yes, the things we have tried on various levels have been ineffective in preventing us from getting where we are now, clearly.

Two questions arise. Who cares, and are protestors entitled to what they want? The two go hand in hand.

Racism has a very strict legal definition and one that seems pretty compromising.

It involves discrimination based on race. However, through extensive litigation and case law, what is fair and unfair has increased the complexities of it.

What the definition tends to avoid dealing with is the trend towards redress and identifying privilege based on race. Far be it from me to comment on the validity of that in this piece, but one can also not be blinded to the current discourse.

While the actions of Clicks are considered by most today to be racist, when we were still dealing with extensive pit toilets and mud hut schools, society’s focus on the plight of black communities seemingly did not have the capacity to deal with issues pertaining to racist marketing campaigns. Perhaps it meant some within those communities cared less or possibly didn’t even care because there were bigger things to worry about but today that’s changed.

Today, after a rising black middle class, extensive academia, and numerous commentaries and conversations, our collective capacity to detect racism and confront it has increased dramatically and it shows in the confrontation with material today that probably would have gone unnoticed in 2005. I’m pretty sure that there’s a reason why Raj 1 and Raj 2 haven’t returned in over a decade to sell us a Corsa Lite.

More people not only care about these issues today but are also more empowered to care about them. However, that’s not to say that everybody is compelled to feel identically about them. This causes a problem because if person A finds offence in something supposedly racist while person B doesn’t. Who do we go with?

Presently, it would be argued that you go with the black person, but what if they’re both black?

This brings us to whether the protestors are entitled to what they want. Shutting down stores or in the words of the EFF, “helping them to close” seems steps too far, but you’re dealing with a politic that rejects the entire structure because of racist undertones, so what do you expect them to do?

The danger of such entitlement is that there are no checks and balances, so allowing such action is only based on the level of upset caused. I fear for commodifying upset because it’s not universal but also because it can be manipulated relatively easily.

What we need is what’s known as legal certainty; a collective agreement on what the rules are and where the balances are struck… an updated definition on what is racist.

Wish us good luck on agreeing on that.

Richard Anthony Chemaly entertainment attorney, radio broadcaster and lecturer of communication ethics.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.