Firm drops ads with chimp in dreadlocks 06/15/2005 The Asahi Shimbun In response to cries of racism, cosmetics maker Mandom Corp. has pulled TV and magazine advertisements featuring a chimpanzee in dreadlocks and Rastafarian clothing imitating movements of black actors. In the commercial, several black actors use a cleaning product to wipe sweat from their faces. The chimpanzee, dressed in a costume of gold, red and green, imitates their movements. "We thought it would create a good atmosphere to have a chimpanzee among friends having fun in a party," said a company spokesman. "We never intended it to be prejudiced, but we concluded that the ad would be taboo based on an international point of view." The Community, an Osaka-based human rights group, informed Mandom in a letter that the commercial was "an extremely insensitive and tasteless attempt at humor." "Visually equating black men as `apes' or `monkeys' is a particularly egregious racial slur," the letter said. As for the chimpanzee's costume, the group said: "Dreadlocks in the colors of red, gold, and green are Rastafarian religious symbols. The dressing up of a chimpanzee in such garb would be akin to dressing it up as a Buddhist monk or a Shinto priest." The commercial had been broadcast since March.(IHT/Asahi: June 15,2005) ***** Cosmetic maker scraps TV commercial mocking blacks Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 08:02 JST TOKYO - Cosmetic maker Mandom Corp has stopped airing a TV commercial containing an expression mocking black people, company officials said Tuesday. In the commercial for face blotting paper for men, several black people wipe sweat off their faces with the paper, while a chimpanzee with a curly hair wig and a multicolor outfit imitates them and wipes its face besides them. The commercial had been on air since March 28, but a human rights group criticized it for putting black people on the same level as apes. After consulting with lawyers and advertising agency officials, the company stopped airing the commercial June 9 and has also stopped using a printed version of the ad in magazines, saying it "lacked an international sense of ethics." Motonobu Nishimura, a company executive, said, "We are very sorry. We apologize to viewers and other people who felt offended." (Kyodo News) ***** Mandom pulls the plug on racist TV commercial Cosmetics maker Mandom Corp. announced Tuesday it has stopped airing a TV commercial that compares black people and monkeys. In the commercial for men's blotting paper, several black people wipe sweat off their faces with the paper, while a chimpanzee beside them in an Afro wig and a multicolored outfit wipes his face in imitation. A human rights group criticized it after it began airing March 28, saying it was comparing black people with monkeys. After consulting with lawyers and advertising agency officials, the company stopped showing the commercial June 9 and has also stopped using a magazine advertisement, saying the campaign "lacked an international sense of ethics." "We are very sorry. We apologize to viewers and other people who felt offended," said Motonobu Nishimura, a company executive. The Japan Times: June 15, 2005 ***** Japanese firm withdraws TV commercial seen as slur against black men (AFP) Khaleej Times Online (UAE) 14 June 2005 TOKYO - A Japanese cosmetics maker has withdrawn a television commercial featuring black men and a dreadlocked chimpanzee after criticism that it was a racial slur, a company spokesman said on Tuesday. Mandom Corp., the second largest maker of men's cosmetics in Japan, which sells under brand names such as Gatsby, halted the advertisement that had been on television nationwide since late March. The commercial for face wipes had a Japanese actor and several black men using them. A chimpanzee with dreadlocks then does the same and wipes its face. "We had received complaints saying the commercial represented racial discrimination as it regarded black people in the same light as apes," a Mandom spokesman said. He said the company also received complaints over the outfit of the chimpanzee which was wearing yellow, red and green, colors that can evoke pan-Africanism or the Rastafarian religion originating in Jamaica. "The commercial had inappropriate expressions. We deeply regret this and would like to apologize deeply to viewers who felt unpleasant and other people concerned," company president Motonobu Nishimura said in a statement. ***** Japanese publisher defies Little Black Sambo protest Justin McCurry in Tokyo Wednesday June 15, 2005 The Guardian Seventeen years after it was removed from bookshops for its racist content, the children's story Little Black Sambo has made a comeback in Japan. The tale of Sambo, a boy who uses his wits to survive after being stalked by tigers, was a hit in Japan when it was first published here in 1953. In 1988, Japanese booksellers agreed to remove it from their shelves after a US-led campaign against its racist language and imagery. Last April, Zuiunsha, a small publisher in Tokyo, decided to reissue the book - under its Japanese title Chibikuro Sambo - reckoning that today's children would be as enchanted by the book as their parents were. The gamble has paid off. About 100,000 copies of the 30-page book have been sold in the past two months and it has made it into the top five on the adult fiction bestsellers' lists at big bookshops in the capital. The publisher brushed aside claims that it was cashing in on a work that many consider racist, with its depictions of Sambo - a derogatory word for black people - with bulging eyes and exaggerated lips. In the late 1890s Helen Bannerman, a Scot, wrote Little Black Sambo for her children while they were living in India. "Times have changed since the book was removed," Zuiunsha's president, Tomio Inoue, told the Guardian. "Black people are more prominent in politics and entertainment, so I don't think this book can be blamed for supporting racial stereotypes. We certainly had no intention of insulting black people. "Sambo is a brave boy who gets his reward at the end of the story. He fights the tigers using his brain so that he won't get eaten. It's an exciting story and children love it. I hope people will see it the same way." Few protests have been voiced in Japan, which has a very small black community, although an online campaign against the book attracted messages from a few people, mainly Americans. "We have replied to all of them in English explaining our position and have heard nothing back, so I think they understand," Mr Inoue said. Meanwhile, the Japanese cosmetics maker Mandom said yesterday it had stopped showing a TV commercial after complaints that it was racist. In the advert, for face blotting paper, several black people wipe the sweat from their brows while a chimpanzee wearing an afro wig imitates them. "We are very sorry and apologise to viewers and other people who felt offended," a company spokesman said. ***** Africa - debt, aid and race By Gwynne Dyer Saturday, June 18th 2005 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=84084623 "We are very sorry and apologise to viewers and other people who felt offended,'' announced the Japanese cosmetics firm Mandom early this month, but mass ritual suicide would have been a more appropriate form of apology. The company had aired a TV commercial that showed several black people wiping the sweat from their brows with a Mandom facial wipe while a chimpanzee wearing an afro wig imitated them. Meanwhile, Augsburg city zoo in southern Germany has just finished a special event in which an "African village'' was erected between the baboon cage and the zebra cage. Black people living in Germany were persuaded to populate the village wearing various sorts of "tribal'' regalia and playing drums, cooking food for sale or selling curios. The good citizens of Augsburg were astonished when people from elsewhere took exception to this display. Germans and Japanese are less sensitive about race in general and about Africa in particular than, say, people in France or the US, where a significant minority of the population is of African descent, but patronising attitudes about Africa are chronic in all the rich countries. Take, for instance, the current debate about increasing aid to African countries and cancelling their debts. The leaders of the eight biggest developed countries will probably make a deal at next month's G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, that doubles aid to Africa and cuts the debts of its poorest countries. Tony Blair, this year's host, wants to make Africa a priority, and Bob Geldof is seeking to repeat his success with the Live-Aid concerts 20 years ago by staging Live8 concerts. But what good will they actually do for Africa? This is where the debate begins, and most people on both sides seem to see Africans as wayward children. Africans are just as intelligent and resourceful as other people, and if their countries are still poor it is because they face special and very intractable problems, but the argument in the rich countries takes almost no account of this. The pessimists point out that vast amounts of aid money have been poured into Africa over the years-around US$5,000 per African-without relieving the continent's poverty. The problem, they say, is the near-universal corruption of Africa's ruling elites: there are 100,000 millionaires in Africa, and yet an African child dies of malnutrition or preventable disease every three seconds. Cancel the debts and pour more aid in, and the same elites will steal that, too. No, say optimists like Blair, things have changed now. A new generation of African leaders is bringing democracy and good governance to the continent, and so long as we put strict conditions on how the new aid and debt relief will be used, this time round most of it won't be wasted. It is a debate in which both sides essentially believe that Africans are childlike. One side assumes it openly: don't give them any more aid until they behave better. The other side is subtler: yes, they are backward, but now they have better leaders who won't steal the money. We give monkeys in the zoo more respect than that. Africa's problem isn't dishonesty or immaturity, which are fairly evenly spread around the planet. It is too many relatively small ethnic groups trying to share the same country. Social traditions that expect successful people to support even distant relations often make the situation worse, but no other continent has such extravagant ethnic diversity, so it's really up to Africans themselves to overcome the problem. The G8 can help, but only in limited ways. Much of Africa's debt burden was not really aid in the first place, but money that the West (and the old Soviet Union) handed over to keep their African clients loyal during the Cold War, knowing full well that it would be stolen. A lot more was "tied'' aid that funded foolish mega-projects in order to create work for Western companies. So cancel the debt with no nonsense about the beneficiaries proving that they can behave "responsibly.'' And if you do give aid, give it without crippling "conditionalities.'' This is where Africans really get treated like backward children, forced to privatise everything in sight in obedience to the fundamentalist market doctrines that now hold sway in most of the West (which, by the sheerest coincidence, creates new investment opportunities for Western companies). Consider Uganda's experience, for example. Uganda, a reasonably well-run country, was forced to impose "user fees'' on basic healthcare and primary education in the late 1980s to qualify for World Bank debt relief and aid-so school attendance collapsed and the death rate among the rural poor soared. Eventually, in 1997, President Yoweri Museveni rebelled and restored free primary education throughout Uganda. Primary school enrolment more than doubled. In 2001 he restored free basic healthcare, and the number of hospital outpatients almost doubled. There will be an orgy of self-congratulation at the G8 next month as African debt is allegedly cut and aid is allegedly raised, and many well-meaning people who have pressured their leaders on this issue will feel that something has been accomplished. It can be, but only if they insist on knowing what strings are attached to the help. Africa is not poor because Africans are more stupid or less honest than people elsewhere. -Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.