In today’s news, dark chocolate is at the center of a discussion about racism. Now, if you’ve ever questioned whether or not racism is alive today, you have only to look at the behavior being pulled by major brands and chains.
For example, Dolce & Gabbana’s ad wherein an Asian woman is taught to use chopsticks to eat pizza, or Burger King’s now-pulled ad for a Vietnamese-inspired burger, which features three people using chopsticks to try to eat it. Because how very inclusive (and not crass at all!) it is to poke fun at the way half the world eats food, right?
Well, we can add a U.K. supermarket, Waitrose, to the list. In a recent product release for their “Trio of Chocolate Easter Ducklings,” they called the dark chocolate Easter duckling the “ugly one.” Mind you, the two other ducklings are made from white chocolate and milk chocolate, and they’re nicknamed Fluffy and Crispy, respectively.
Now, even if you find this arbitrary or silly even, remember that for centuries whiteness has been linked to both beauty and pureness.
Shame on @waitrose for questionable marketing practises and reinforcing the “ugly black duckling” narrative. INSIDIOUS casual racism that vilifies dark hues #shame #Waitrose #racism. An exposè a lack of diversity among your decision making staff. Stuck in the 60s! @hopenothate pic.twitter.com/u17S5i8MeN
— Stefania Ranieri (@KetoStef) April 9, 2019
Yes, we understand that the “ugly duckling” is a reference to a children’s story — Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale The Ugly Duckling — but the fact that no one thought about linking it to color is totally irresponsible.
Waitrose apologises after offending shoppers with 'racist' chocolate ducklings https://t.co/7bTuEURPGf pic.twitter.com/uzExZCktZg
— The Mirror (@DailyMirror) April 8, 2019
In Andersen’s story, it is a brown duckling that is made fun of by the other ducklings before it turns into a swan — but why should we, knowing how racism and colorism have destroyed societies, lean into that?
I have been dragged by people saying “it’s just chocolate” It’s not the chocolate but the negative correlation between dark and ugly.
— Stefania Ranieri (@KetoStef) April 9, 2019
“it’s just a story”. First published in the 1900s (anno 1843) at the height of an era blackface and @Waitrose used it in 2019? Damn! Sort it out!
See this tweet, which tries to explain it to people who don’t want to listen:
I am not at all angry. Have you read some of the comments in response to my tweet? My tweet is measured. Nothing at all wrong or emotional about what is said. The Ugly Black Duckling originated in the 1900s in a world steeped deep in colonialism. Thanks for your input tho!
— Stefania Ranieri (@KetoStef) April 9, 2019
Even if someone over at Waitrose didn’t make the association purposefully, a major brand like that should be able to deduce whether or not their marketing tactics are exclusionary and/or insulting.
Don’t think for a second they intended racism but surely someone at Waitrose could have realised the impact his would have. https://t.co/0B9fEPoZrs
— Dr Jon Ackroyd (@drjonackroyd) April 9, 2019
Language means something — whether we want to be reductionist about it or not. We have to be responsible when we use it. Period.
All @waitrose had to do is randomly mix up the ducklings so that in each box either the dark chocolate, milk chocolate or white chocolate one is the #uglyduckling. Sorted #EasterEggEquality
— batterseamark 🏳️⚧️ (@battersea_mark) April 9, 2019
“We are very sorry for any upset caused by the name of this product, it was absolutely not our intention to cause any offence,” a Waitrose spokesperson told Insider. The packaging has been removed.
Waitrose apologises and pulls 'racist' Easter chocolate from shelves https://t.co/wEyGT15NH1 pic.twitter.com/ABVYDa3WwK
— ITV News (@itvnews) April 9, 2019
There are PLENTY of people saying that the world has gone mad, and there’s no way the chocolate was racist. This tweet is a good example of how people are refusing to make the connection:
Seriously? The world is going PC quackers! #racistchocolate https://t.co/RhO32FXRBM
— Juan Guerrero (@nodding_donkey) April 8, 2019
Or this tweet. Which misses the point that racism is both direct and obvious as well as insidious and micro.
There's enough actual racism in the world without us having to go looking for it, surely?
— Roch (@gar78) April 9, 2019
The fact that Twitter is so offended by the idea that chocolate could cause a discussion around racism shows that people do not want to deal with the actual, day-to-day effects of deeply-rooted systemic racism. Yep, even in candy.
For example, there’s this issue:
In the absence of not being seen as worthwhile& rendered invisible via the ongoing experimentof colonization,millions of racialized women are bleaching their skin to "meet" the western ideals of beauty-whiteness.Racism costs lives& robs us of our humanity. https://t.co/qWfbsQbATu
— Michael Bowe (@MrMichaelBowe) January 17, 2019
And there’s this. It’s simple — when we see white as good and black as ugly, and we share this in our marketing, we’re being racist.
UK racism: Under-representation, whitewashing, Eurocentric beauty standards, whiteness as default & double-barrel complex #FreedomOfMind2016 pic.twitter.com/AhOcuWV161
— Emma Louise Pudge (@takeonEDs) October 10, 2016
In the end, we hope that people will be more willing to look at a situation not with their own eyes, but with the perspective of people who’ve been oppressed.
Even if candy is a silly subject to argue about, it’s not really about that — it’s about something much deeper.
