I don’t really understand why this is supposed to be offensive, but it made me think. When I was a child I used to visit a theme park with my family that happened to have an American theme. After googling I found there was another in a different part of the UK, which I’m linking to because it has a better description:
Do Americans find this offensive? Was it okay then but would be frowned upon now? How about themes based on other countries/ethnicities? Would eg an Irish theme be different to a Mexican theme? Or does it depend on some other context?
In my experience, it is most often those ethnicities that feel oppressed or mistreated that object to such things. They feel like their identity is being exploited without their permission.
Since the US considers itself and its culture rather highly, and generally sees itself as “the greatest country,” I find it unlikely that most of us would care, unless the theming actually included something negative about us. The things they get wrong, rather than being infuriating and insulting, would be seen as cute.
It’s a common dynamic I see all over the place. The more power you have, the more secure you feel, and the less things bother you.
I don’t think that’s quite the same thing because I couldn’t find forced puns or wordplay in their ride names. More similar would be if someone started an “American” food chain in Britain with all names being puns on American culture such as “Hollywood Hash Browns” and “Freedom Fries”. I’m still not convinced it would be offensive, but it would still be cringy, and I can see how things like “Trader Jose” can be thought of as stupid at least.
Jesus Christ already. Now Trader Joe’s. People need to stop being so offended at everything and trying to one up each other by showing just how offended they are! How about this student actually puts her efforts into something that will legitimately help people?
Uh oh, Trader Joe’s uniform is a Hawaiian shirt but they’re not Hawaiian! Racists!!
One reason any “theming” of this sort is often not received well is because people are hyper-attuned to what they are and aren’t, but not so knowledgeable about others.
To use an analogy: I used to draw country maps somewhat freehand (being able to remember the general outline of many nations.) But then people would nitpick that I was drawing their nation badly - i.e., the Korean guy at the table would say, “No, Korea doesn’t look like that” and correct me. It’s okay if all the other nations are off, but don’t draw Korea wrong!
So it’s similar with ethnic branding. To an average American, they wouldn’t find anything objectionable about a “Mexican pavilion” that is all about sombreros, six-shooters, tequila, tortillas, mariachi, Aztecs, etc. - but a Mexican might get annoyed, “No, there’s a whole lot more to Mexico than that, and many Mexicans aren’t like that.”
Reminds me of a local steak house that has many menu items named after Cleveland sports heroes. It’s getting harder to appreciate things like the Bernie Kosar Burger.
That’s about right. Also American is kind of a very amorphous ethnicity. Though it seems the theme park in the OP was very Wild West themed with a few WW2 references thrown in? I probably would be a little annoyed that this was what British people considered to be the American experience.
On a side note, I’m very glad Trader Joe’s took this step. I was pretty shocked I was the first time I went to a TJ and saw things listed as “Trader Jose” and “Trader Ming”.
Yeah, it makes sense, but I wondered if some Americans might be offended anyway. When I visited the Epcot world showcase it was kind of uncomfortable seeing the literally Disneyfied version of my country.
And to expand on this, as the student who wrote the petition about Trader Joe’s superficially innocuous marketing described it, a “narrative of exoticism” can be problematic, especially when it’s patronizing and crass. A historically common racist stereotype is that some marginalized ethnic group is broadly inferior - but their one redeeming quality is their unusual and tasty food. It’s not a “trap” for us when we’re expressing genuine aesthetic appreciation for something, just a historical context that we should be sensitive to.
I don’t know… on one hand, I think a lot of it is really pretty innocent stuff- clearly Trader Joe’s wasn’t trying to do anything condescending or hateful; most of what they did was just “Joe” translated into the language of the product (i.e. “Jose” for their Mexican/Spanish stuff,etc… although “Giotto” isn’t “Joe” or “Joseph”, so who knows?)
On the other, I can kind of see how it’s annoying. I’m from Texas, and a LOT of the “Texas” stuff out there is some combination of ludicrous, absurd and offensive. Sometimes because it’s just horrible stereotypes, others because the “Texas” item in question is just a shit example of that item. So I get how if you were part of an ethnic minority of some kind, that might be more annoying.
But annoying is about as far as it probably goes; having “Trader Jose” tortillas isn’t some example of some kind of horrible cultural appropriation and a “narrative of exoticism” (whatever TF that is). It’s just a cutesy label. Not a whole lot different than say… “Old El Paso” Mexican foods or “Texas Pete” hot sauce, or “Greek Gods” yogurt really.
I was taken to an Outback Steakhouse when in the US and while a little cringeworthy it wasn’t offensive. To be fair, when the waitperson heard my accent he stumbled a bit and then toned down his act.
What was far worse in 1999 was near everyone wanting me to repeat lines from Crocodile Dundee, at least a Bloomin’ Onion had redeeming features unlike that dreadful flick.
I vaguely remember that Newman’s Own, (the line of foods promoted by Paul Newman, will all profits going to charity) did something similar to what Trader Joe’s is getting criticized for, with the illustration of Paul Newman on the packaging changed to match the product. So, for example, on the bottle of the Caesar salad dressing, his head is illustrated to look like it’s carved in marble. That’s probably not offensive, though.
Is it that hard to understand that representations of others can have specific historical contexts?
Blackface, for example, isn’t just one group randomly deciding to represent another group for good-natured fun. There’s a historical reason why one particular group would do that about the other group.
Colonial exploitation of other lands, along with the repression of their peoples, was commonly justified by visual and narrative representations of the people in those lands from the colonists’ ideologically charged perspectives, usually dehumanizing those people in various ways.
There’s a whole historical context to cultural representations, and the history didn’t treat everyone the same.
We can debate how much any particular case (Trader Joe’s, or whatever) is connected to that history, but the history itself wasn’t the same for everybody, and if you can’t understand that, then maybe you need to re-take high school history. Trying to equalize the historical context and experience of all groups is either willful ignorance or JAQing off.
People need to stop being so offended at everything and trying to one up each other by showing just how offended they are! How about this student actually puts her efforts into something that will legitimately help people?