Well, to me, it’s sort of like how members of one group (Blacks, Gays/Lesbians, Asians, Women, Exotic Dancers, what have you) can refer to each other using terms that would be considered derogatory if used by an outsider (you know the words I mean).
Members of these groups appropriate these terms in order to turn their “oppression” (for lack of a better word) on it’s head. Dismantling the Master’s house with the Master’s tools, as it were. Claiming what power they have in the situation.
In addition, the reason the people within a certain group can do this is because there’s not much doubt as to the fact that they get it, not much doubt as to whether the term is being used jokingly or venomously.
On the other hand, if a person outside of the group in question makes an attempt to be in on the “joke”, not only does he/she run the risk of being misunderstood, he/she takes away some of that aforementioned “power”.
It’s more complicated than that, of course, but that’s the best I can do on no coffee today.
So you have posted this argument in both threads. I might have missed it, so please point out for me where someone has advocated that it is right to have caricatures of white people, but not for minorities. Also what would these caricatures be?
On a related vein, what do folks think about NinjaBurger? I mean, that’s another Asian-oriented satire, but I don’t think anyone’s protested it for being racist.
I think it’s a hoot 'n a half, myself, but perhaps a comparison of Ninjaburger and the A&F shirts will help show what makes something “offensive.”
I can see the problem with the “Buddha Bowl” t-shirt. For the Asians, Buddha is god. It is as if they marketed a shirt like “Club Christ-Save 'yer money” or something like that.
This link was posted in the other thread. I do not see any negative racial stereotypes in these shirts either.
The first one is a play on words that uses “Wok and Bowl” instead of “Rock and Bowl”. It doesn’t say or imply anything negative about Asians.
The second one is a cartoon Buddha. Once again, no negative stereotype.
The third one is an advertisement for a laundry service. Possible negative stereotype is that a lot of asians own dry cleaners? If that is the stereotype, why is that negative?
Fourth is for a pizza place. “eat in or Wok out”. Once again, no stereotype. There is a buddha on this one though.
The last one is the kind of shirt that I was talking about before. An asian looking symbol. No stereotype.
My parents have a “ridiculous caricature” of me and my brother hanging in our house. It doesn’t bother me or my parents.
Apu, on the Simpsons is a “ridiculous caricature” of an Indian person. That is why he is funny. Homer Simpson is a “ridiculous caricature” of a middle class white man.
The reason I didn’t mention the “ridiculous caricatures” is because they are cartoons. Should we do away with cartoons all together? Or maybe cartoons should just be stick figures with no face?
Not to mention the caricatures on the shirts do not seem to be portraying Asian people in a negative manner what so ever.
5-HT: I don’t understand your argument. Please clarify.
In case you are using it as an example of white caricatures, it hardly fits. The team was composed of Native Americans, Hispanics and Whites. It was done to protest an official team with the name of “The Reds”. It was done in the hope that people would understand, and change name of “The Reds”. It backfired because most white people were not offended, and in fact liked the name. If I recall the discussion on this board, most white people liked the idea.
Ahh, there’s the rub. Guess what, son? Your opinion is irrelevant. The only opinion that matters is those of the people being stereotyped.
This is axiomatic. I may use the terms “darky” “kike” “wetback”, etc., with absolutely no intention to denigrate or offend. My use of these terms are still offensive if a person of the group thus titled is offended. They same holds for stereotypes.
Relevance? How is a group of two people being “stereotyped” by this.
What you and your parents do in the privacy of your own home is your business. What A&F chooses to sell to the public is the public’s business.
I’ve heard this explanation and I’m just not buying in. If those groups of people only use derogatory language when they’re “among their own kind” that’s fine. However as soon as they start using such language among the general population then I believe it should become fair game.
**
If they still get upset when outsiders use the language then it obviously isn’t dismanlting the master’s house with the master’s tools.
The stereotypes are negative because all Asian people are not midgets with Raiden hats. You might think it is not negative, horhay_achoa, but that may be because you see them that way.
If you have ever seen the movie “Bamboozled”,you might say those are not negative sterotypes because that is how you see black people.
You know, checking out your other posts I don’t think you see anything as racist. Like those people who say there is nothing wrong with the KKK, because black people have all black groups,why not white people.
I think you have racial issues that need to be resolved.
As a white male, I do not feel that I have the right to use words like n----- or f–, just because those groups use it among themselves. If a group feels that a particular word degrades them, what’s wrong with respecting their wishes and not using that word? Why begrudge them such a simple courtesy? Do you realize that when minority groups use these words among themselves, they are making fun of people like YOU, Marc.
Why? They can’t be angry with prejudice AND make fun of it at the same time?
Well, Marc, I’m not saying the system is not without its flaws, and if you’re going with the “If you can talk about your mama, I can talk about your mama” argument, then that’s your business…
