Dear Editor,
The East Tennessean recently published an article entitled “Abercrombie & Fitch image ‘just plain racist’.” I care little for Abercrombie & Fitch and it is not on their behalf I write this letter. Rather, it is in concern of the mentality expressed in the article that I felt compelled to respond.
The mentality I speak of is a kind of anti-racism. Where racism is intolerant to particular groups because of their differences, the phenomena of anti-racism is intolerant to particular groups because of their sameness.
As the name suggests, racism would be the opposite of anti-racism. Yet, more than this, an anti-racist smells a hint of racism in anything potentially prejudiced.
In taking such a strong stance against racism, anti-racists have succumbed to the very ignorance which possesses their less esteemed counterparts. They make conclusions about people based on the same irrelevant condition of a person’s skin color.
The essence of racism is not white people are better than (fill in the blank.) Nor are the racist views necessarily endemic to a particular people. Anyone can be a racist, the color of your skin doesn’t matter.
If you can’t accept this, then guess what, you’re having a racist moment. Having a racist moment doesn’t make you a bad or hateful person. You are simply making a rash judgement about someone of whom you know little.
Nevertheless, the conclusions which racists make are not necessarily untrue. Maybe that prep wearing the Abercrombie & Fitch really is a rich, white snob and perhaps the black guy driving the Z-3 really didn’t steal it.
The danger of racism is not reaching certain conclusions, because even racists can say untrue things. Rather, the danger of racism is using a fallacious method to reach your conclusion. It is because of its method of reasoning that I deem racism wrong.
It was with this distinction in mind that I read the article, in which I felt the author succumbed to the anti-racist viewpoint.
She described the Abercrombie & Fitch image of “handsome white jocks and beautiful white women frolicking in fields” as promoting self-hate anti-racism. In what way is this image hateful or racist?
Sure, it may appeal to a particular stereotype, but that’s what advertisers do. They market to the people most likely to buy the product they are advertising.
Perhaps this is what the author takes issue with, the fact that A&F is promoting a racist image but that the A&F company itself is not racist. If this is her concern, then why should A&F be singled out as a promoter of racism from among the myriad of other advertisers who exploit society’s stereotypes to make money?
The author of the article does not justify her claim that the store is racist, except by noting the awkward glances she experienced from a particular A&F clerk and from the all-white ads celebrating beautiful white youth.
This doesn’t mean A&F is racist, rather it means that a single sales clerk may have had a “racist moment” and that the image A&F exploits is unrepresentative of all people.
The author suggests that because Abercrombie & Fitch doesn’t offer any smiling black people on their ads A&F must be prejudiced. And I would agree totally. Abercrombie & Fitch is prejudiced. However, it may not be the white of your skin that A&F seeks, but more likely the green of your money.
Matthew Schacht

Author