So, what do you think of the brouhaha over the Abercrombie and Fitch t-shirts sporting racist Asian stereotypes? Do you think they should have been pulled? Do you even know what I'm talking about? Check here or this article for the scoop.

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2002

Answers

I weighed in on this over at 3WA a few days ago. I was suprised by the number of people who seemed to respond with, "It doesn't offend me so it must be ok." I don't give a shit about who it doesn't offend. I do care about those who it does offend.

I think it was a cheap shot at Asian people, and I find it really difficult to believe that those shirts made it to production, much less the stores, without somebody pointing out that they were probably going to make some folks seriously upset. If I'm wrong, then there is a whole world of problems going on over at A&F development, and if I'm right, they basically just said, "Fuck you people who don't like it, we think it's funny anyway."

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2002

Wow. That is really, really bad. I mean, that ad campaign is the kind of thing The Onion would think up as a parody, so how did it find its way to actual stores? Way to shoulder the white man's burden, A&F.

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2002

My litmus test for these sort of things is to substitute different groups of people into the same scenario.

In this case, if A&F came up with a fake business for a T-shirt named, say, Uncle Sambo's School of Lawn Jockey Modeling or Pepe's Roi Grande River Crossings, would it be offensive?

Given that criteria, A&F should have known better. But I also honestly believe that A&F wasn't intentionally trying to offend anybody. The sad conclusion that has be drawn if that is the case, however, is that there are quite a few insensitive or ignorant people working at A&F.

On a side note, if a majority of people who bought A&F clothing were Asian, would this have happened? Also, should a company that directs it's marketing at youth be extra careful when using racial or ethnic groups as marketing tools and/or models?

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

Someone at A&F ought to get shitcanned for making the decision to approve those shirts, because that. was. just. dumb.

I mean, it really depends on context. If A&F were Asian-owned, or had a long history of Asian involvement, it would be seen in a different context. But considering that Tommy Hilfiger has been plagued for years by something he didn't even say, and considering A&F's white-preppie reputation -- stupid, stupid marketing and product development all around.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

Given that criteria, A&F should have known better. But I also honestly believe that A&F wasn't intentionally trying to offend anybody.

Well, no. You don't get to be one of the most successful retail companies in history by offending people on purpose. When I read that article, I said to myself "AB Chao and Master V would buy 10 of those t-shirts immediately."

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

I have some friends who would really love the "Kiss me, I'm a beaner" shirts, as well. They'd be perfect for Cinco De Mayo.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

Someone at A&F ought to get shitcanned for making the decision to approve those shirts, because that. was. just. dumb.

I don't know that I agree with that.

I think it was edgy, and if you're a company like A&F, that's how you capture and keep market share. In hindsight, the shirt offended people, so it wasn't a smart idea, but my first reaction upon seeing the shirts was that I have a bunch of Asian friends who would be racing onto Ebay to snag some of them before they were destroyed.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

There was an opinion column in the LA times that pointed out, too, that A &F has made a career of borderline offensive things- which net controversy, which wind up netting more sales. I'm in the they knew this would offend, but would garner enough publicity to make it worth it camp.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

In hindsight, the shirt offended people, so it wasn't a smart idea

Yeah, I agree with Mike. I think they are probably kicking themselves for not looking at it a little harder, but you have to hand it to them for pulling it - they didn't produce it to offend people, and they took it off the shelves as soon as it did. Sometimes you think you have a really clever idea, and it falls flat because people read it and think you are being snarkier than you are. This happens in marketing all the time.

My first job out of college, I worked for an HIV/AIDS non-profit in Dallas that did an extremely edgy ad campaign. Most of the complaints we got came from the people we were trying to serve. The agency that did it thought it was brilliant, and so did we - and we all had the best interest of our clients at heart. We pulled it down, even though it was getting us tons of free publicity, because we decided we were wrong after all about how the message was getting across.

How anybody even noticed the Wong's shirt among the 3,500 other "fake business" t-shirts A&F sells is beyond me.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

Let me put it this way: if halfjew.com or Heeb magazine sold T- shirts that said, "Gefilte This," or "JAP and Proud," I'd laugh and maybe pick one up. Or, we give the love to Lin Chao because we know AB does.

People get to choose whether to be offended or not by the shirts, just like they get to choose whether to get mad or laugh at John Rocker. That doesn't absolve A&F of responsibility for putting them out in the first place.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

For what it's worth, I love the Fightin' Whities. So maybe I'm being hypocritical on this.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

But who gets to choose? And how many people does it require to make that choice? If an awful lot of Asian shoppers react with a smile and lesser amount write angry letters to their newspapers, which group of people is A&F bound to?

I just don't know that the shirts offend very many A&F shoppers -- if you buy clothes there, you can't be shocked that they'd do that sort of thing. I tend to think that A&F is more unlucky than dumb -- like I said, I know an awful lot of people who would love one of the shirts.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

Actually, the Fightin' Whites is what made me think of this.

I think those shirts are hilarious, and I really want one (and May 31 is my birthday, FYI. Like how I snuck that in there?). But what if other people don't? What if another group on campus reacts by buying Indians jerseys with the Chief Wahoo logo and calls themselves the "Scalpin' Indians'? Do you drop both shirts? Keep both? Keep one and not the other?

What about a case like the Florida State Seminoles? It's a team named after an Indian tribe, and the name and mascot offends people -- but not the Seminoles themselves (at least as far as I've read, the team and the school have a pretty good relationship). Should the school change its mascot because a different group of Native Americans wants it changed?

I just think this is a tricky issue in general. If people are offended, that's generally not a good think. But what kind and how many people need to be pissed off for it to be a bad thing?

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

If an awful lot of Asian shoppers react with a smile and lesser amount write angry letters to their newspapers, which group of people is A&F bound to?

Let me rephrase that slightly to tie to a different discussion:

If an awful lot of wedding guests react with a smile to receiving the shower invite with the registry info printed right on it and a lesser amount think it's tacky, which group of people is PG bound to?

And the answer is that she's not bound to either group, but to a higher standard of etiquette. And in this case I would say that the higher standard is that you don't make offensive jokes unless you're (a) trying to make a larger point or (b) have given your audience enough room and context to laugh comfortably. And that goes whether your joke is racial, sexual, scatalogical, whatever. And if you are deliberately violating that higher standard, you accept the consequences, which is that some people will find you offensive and tacky.

And I do think that A&F doesn't have either the appropriate context or enough of a relationship with the audience to avoid the tackiness charge. I've never bought anything from A&F, and this doesn't bias me in their favor.

Now, should they have been pulled? That's a different question. If A&F is actually trying to go with the marketing strategy discussed above, then the answer is no. Either stick with a strategy that differentiates you from J.Crew/LL Bean/etc., even if it means offending potential customers, or don't produce clothes that will offend the potential customers in the first place. But this whole "Oh my gosh, we didn't realize those shirts would be offensive!" retraction just makes them look dumb.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

To address the mascot problem you bring up, Mike --

Again, context. If I remember correctly, the Cleveland Indians were named for Jim Thorpe. In its original (FSU) context, the Tomahawk Chop was not particularly offensive; it was only when it got to Atlanta -- and the Braves have, as best I can tell, absolutely no relation with any local tribes; their idea of good relations was taking down Chief Noc-a-Homa's tent -- that, stripped of context, it became unclassy.

As for the Redskins, I prefer Gregg Easterbrook's approach -- the "Chesapeake Watershed Region Indigenous Persons." But really, the Redskins aren't just offensive to Indians, but to football fans of all colors.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

That's an interesing example. Two things:

1.) It seems to me that there's a big discussion going on as to whether PG is bound by the higher standard of etiquitte or to the customers (i.e., the bride's wish). I definitely don't think that's an obvious question, else PG would not be asking for advice.

2.) PG isn't trying to sell anything with her invites (except, I suppose, that the shower is an event worth attending, but I'm guessing that seeing PG's return address on the envelope makes that argument better than any wording on the invitation would). A&F is trying to sell clothes, and they're trying to sell clothes to younger people, and younger people tend to -- IMO -- be more inclined to buy from a company like A&F because of a perceived edginess.

If A&F's desire is simply not to offend, it will go out of business because it will become just like every other random clothing company and the brand name will have no cache. A&F builds its brand name precisely because of shirts like these, and the controversy they cause. (Or, to take a previous example, didn't the A&F catalogue a few years ago have naked pictures of models or something like that? People freaked, and the company continues to do pretty well).

A&F is bound not to offend its clientele to the point where it stops buying clothes, but it doesn't have to be Seseme Street pure either.

Once the furor started, A&F probably had to pull the shirts to avoid looking callous. I just don't think making the shirts in the first place was an inherantly bad idea. They just crossed the thin line between edgy and too much irritation for corporate comfort.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

I didn't bring up the Redskins on purpose -- it's probably the most offensive of the nicknames and I don't think that there's a good reason, other than tradition, to keep it.

In the case of the Indians, the name is apparently honorific, but the mascot itself (i.e. Chief Wahoo) isn't. With the Seminoles, I believe that both are intended to be honorific, and the "Fightin' Whites" are pretty clearly a sardonic joke.

What about the "Fightin' Irish" logo that Notre Dame uses, though?

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

(If the following comes across as angry, I apologize. I'm not angry. I just have a very strong opinion about this.)

What exactly are the negative connotations attached to the term "Fightin' Irish"? That there exists the stereotype that Irish people have a short temper, and, following the same idea, must fight a lot? Hmmm, seems like a stretch to compare that with the situation facing American Indians who would just like a little respect.

I think it minimizes the legitimate complaint of Native Americans to then in turn call into question every mascot that can possibly be used as an example. How about it? Any Scandinavians out there who are pissed about Minnesota's Vikings? I don't think the term "Yankee" has always been intended as a compliment... should people of the Northeast protest? Yes, I'm Native American. Yes, I do disagree with mascots such as the Braves, Indians, and (of course) Redskins. And yes, I LOVED the Fightin' Whities.

Regarding the Irish: No, it's not the same.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

What exactly are the negative connotations attached to the term "Fightin' Irish"? That there exists the stereotype that Irish people have a short temper, and, following the same idea, must fight a lot?

Uh, yeah. That's it.

If you're not offended by it, more power to you. I'm not either. My question was ... what if suddenly, people are? What if Irish groups come out and protest the stereotypes, perpetuated by the mascot, that they wear green all the time and fight a lot?

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

(except, I suppose, that the shower is an event worth attending, but I'm guessing that seeing PG's return address on the envelope makes that argument better than any wording on the invitation would).

Mike, you go and say a sweet thing and I want you to be my boyfriend again, and then I remember "corr! he's got a fiancee."

in re: Fightin' Irish --- I thought that was not so much about how the Irish are short-tempered, but in the vein of an adjective about the team. Doesn't one of the Carolinas go by the "Fightin' Gamecocks?"

Do they then change that when chickens everywhere rise up in protest?

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

That would be South Carolina. And yes, I still have a "You Can't Lick Our 'Cocks" shirt that I got from there in high school.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

re: the Fighting Gamecocks

When I was in high school, my sister's boyfriend came over to our house for dinner wearing a hat that said "COCKS" on it. It also said "fighting game" somewhere, but it was much smaller type.

I thought I was being terribly clever when I said that I was going to create some tee shirts that were the "fighting game CUNTS".

I don't know if I've ever seen my mother get so mad at some naughty language.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

Emily, if you ever do make shirts that say "fighting game CUNTS" on them, I want to be first in line to buy a whole handful. Oh, man, I gotta catch my breath. Hee!

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

About the shirts, I think Emil Guillermo really said it best in his article: there's a difference between self-deprecating humor and humor that denigrates a different group. As he also said, if A&F had put out t-shirts with two black guys eating watermelon and fried chicken you can bet there'd be African Americans picketing those stores faster than you can say "boycott." Being edgy in your marketing and products is one thing, putting potentially offensive racial stereotypes on a t-shirt is another thing altogether.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

Are you saying that if an Asian company had done it, the shirts would have been OK?

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

As he also said, if A&F had put out t-shirts with two black guys eating watermelon and fried chicken you can bet there'd be African Americans picketing those stores faster than you can say "boycott."

True, but with all due respect to Emil Guillermo, he might as well have also pointed out that if A&F had sent anthrax along with their catalogs, a lot of people would have gotten very sick. Of course, A&F didn't actually do either, which is a long way of saying that I'm never very impressed with columnists who argue -- "Well, if this had happened, it would have been really bad.

I just don't see anything sinister, or even inherantly prejudicial, about what A&F did. They guessed that the shirts would be irreverant, not offensive. They guessed wrong. That's all.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2002

tag-o-rama

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

Man, how did I miss all this yesterday?

Two points. Why do people see it differently if blacks are stereotyped on T-shirts then if Asians are stereotyped? Both are out of date stereotypes as well. How many Asian dry cleaners do you know. I haven't seen any, but I sure have seen lots of Asian nail care places. Why not parody that? Because it is current and, thus, still a touchy subject.

So is it OK to use out of date stereotypes because they really don't exist anymore? Before saying it is, I would suggest doing some background reading on the intense discrimination Asians faced in America at the time the laundry stereotype developed. And the Chinese Exclusionary Acts. And the Japanese internment camps during WWII.

Second, shoulf A&F have a social responsibility to its demographic? From what I can see, children are by and large the main buyers of A&F clothing. Should A&F take that into consideration when developing clothing such these T-shirts?

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

How many Asian dry cleaners do you know. I haven't seen any . . .

Clearly the MOC has never done any dry cleaning in New York.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

My last three laundry services have been Asian-owned and run. I don't think it's all that outdated.

And the Japanese internment camps during WWII.

I think comparing the release of a t-shirt to the imprisoning of thousands of Americans is a bit of a stretch. (And pretty close to an invocation of Godwin's Law, btw).

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

Yeah, well, fred... you're a facist! (Or a Nazi? Which is it I'm supposed to call you? Hitler!)

Yeah, I think the deal here is that they were trying to have a funny t-shirt and it ended up not being quite as funny to the people to which they intended to sell it. Having once designed an ad that read "Volunteer your ASS off!" with an accompanying picture of a donkey, and receiving an equal amount of "That is hilarious!" and "Oh my God, you can't print it!" reaction, I am in the camp that says it ended up being far more offensive than it was intended, which is why the jerked it off the shelves.

It's like making a joke or telling a story at a party and having someone say "Hey, that's not funny!" You may not have meant to be a dick, so you apologize profusely and let it go.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

I just thought of this: When I was in college, a fraternity on campus had a party called "Who Rides the Bus?"

Two girls, dates of pledges, painted their faces black, put watermelons under their dresses and came to the party dressed that way.

People. THAT is offensive. They got kicked off campus for it. (One dollah if you can guess which frat it was.) Now, black people DO ride the bus (along with people of every other race), so why is that so offensive to me and not the Asian laundry t-shirt? I have no idea what the difference is, and maybe I should find them equally offensive.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

Al, what I thought when I first saw this was of the South of the Border fraternity parties. Where they'd have a picture of a guy in a sombrero taking a siesta under a cactus. And, when Hispanic student organizations got offended, they'd say "But we just meant it to be fun. It's not offensive, it's just a good time."

But Mike, these shirts, whether you find them offensive or not, ARE prejudicial. They are portraying stereotypes that many Asian people find offensive, just as many Hispanic students found those parties offensive. When a white organization takes a stereotype of a minority ethnic group and uses it "just for fun", it's not just fun for the people they are laughing at. It's racism.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

I think I might have gotten a bit off point in my last post. What I'm getting at is that while most people would clearly agree that a parody of blacks, i.e. fried chicken and watermelon, would be offensive in any context, the same standard doesn't apply to other minority groups.

Why? Is it because the level of white guilt is greater towards blacks than towards hispanics or Asians?

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

How many Asian dry cleaners do you know.

A lot. The two places I use here, for example. Not that that makes any difference, really.

But Mike, these shirts, whether you find them offensive or not, ARE prejudicial. They are portraying stereotypes that many Asian people find offensive, just as many Hispanic students found those parties offensive. When a white organization takes a stereotype of a minority ethnic group and uses it "just for fun", it's not just fun for the people they are laughing at. It's racism.

Well, you're right in the sense that they are offensive to some people. But I don't think it's racism. The shirts are intended to be tongue-in-cheek. The fact that people are taking offense means that A&F made a miscalculation, but IMO it's not a racist one.

I mean, is the problem the shirts themselves? Or the company selling them? Would it make a difference if A&F could produce statistics showing that most of the people buying the shirts are Asian?

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

[OT]
"They got kicked off campus for it. (One dollah if you can guess which frat it was.)"

Well, I'm gonna guess that it was the same, uh, order that got in trouble at Texas for hiring only black people to serve food and drinks at their annual antebellum formal. Oh, and also for flying the Rebel flag over their chapter house, but not the state or US flag.

I find this notion that buying into the trappings -- the seersucker suit, the dressing up in Civil War uniforms, the copious drinking of straight bourbon, the magnolia trees in the backyard, the thinly- veiled racist behavior like the aforementioned -- somehow creates "a Southern Gentleman" quite amusing, in a pathos-inspired way.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

Mike, I really, really can't believe you don't understand that these shirts are racist.

This entry says it a lot better than I can.

http://www.blueletters.net/monologue/2002/042002.shtml

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

This conversation is starting to remind of the sexual harrassment training and racial sensitivity training I had to take when I was in the military.

The one thing they stressed was that the accused doesn't determine wrong behavior, the accusor does. In other words, my intentions are for shit. If someone finds what I do offensive, whether I intended it to be so or not, it is offensive.

It doesn't matter if A&F weren't trying to offend or be racist, the group they chose to parody found there actions to be so, so A&F is guilty.

That this can be carried to ridiculous extremes is a whole other issue.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

I'm not arguing that the shirts aren't racist, although I think that's a mighty strong word -- but it's a matter of perception, and so if people think they're offensive, then by definition they are. What I don't think is that this points to A&F being a racist company, or that the decision to print the shirts was the result of racism.

I thought this particular line from the entry stood out:

Normally, I am not a shopper of Abercrombie & Fitch, as their clothes are not my style.

Exactly.

This is where I think A&F miscalculated. I really, truly believe that this is not a case of a company looking to make a few bucks by exploiting ethnic stereotypes to the white masses, and that rather the whole thing was tongue-in-cheek.

Most of the criticisms I've read come from people who make a similar I-don't-normally-shop-there claim, which shows me that maybe A&F didn't misread its target demographic so much as it underestimated the amount of negative attention the shirts would receive from the population at large.

Again, does it make a difference who's buying the shirts? What if it comes out that the majority of buyers are, in fact, Asian- Americans?

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

Most of the criticisms I've read come from people who make a similar I-don't-normally-shop-there claim, which shows me that maybe A&F didn't misread its target demographic so much as it underestimated the amount of negative attention the shirts would receive from the population at large.

Again, does it make a difference who's buying the shirts? What if it comes out that the majority of buyers are, in fact, Asian- Americans?

So, it's okay to make racist shirts if the people who are offended by them wouldn't normally wear your clothes anyway?

I think the key thing isn't who is buying them, but who is making them, and making money off of them. For instance, there's that Secret Asian Man comic strip that does all sorts of things with Asian stereotypes- but is also drawn by an Asian man. He has that right. And, you know, Asian and Asian-American people have the right to buy these shirts off eBay just like many African-American people collect vintage lawn jockeys and wooden "Mammies" etc. But even if the primary purchasers of a t-shirt with a watermelon eating black man were African-Americans, I'd still have a HUGE problem with that tee shirt being put out by a company whose employees, models, and clientele are all historically mostly white. And I would hope so would you.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

If a boardwalk store in Ocean City had thought up the design, they'd be making a killing right now, or at least when Memorial Day hits. Hell, when Memorial Day comes around, I'd be surprised if I *didn't* see the style ganked onto a baseball shirt. What would be the impact if someone bought a shirt from one of these little mom and pop shops, or someone who thought it up for a Cafe Press store? Not much.

A&F is marketing to teens, not ethnically and culturally sensitive adults.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

Keli, the Ocean City boardwalk is exactly what I was thinking of when I saw the shirts. There are much, much worse items availible at any clothing store, and nobody says a word.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

So, it's okay to make racist shirts if the people who are offended by them wouldn't normally wear your clothes anyway?

I don't think that's what Mike is saying.

And I think that the MOC had the right idea that the onus lies with the offender, not the offended. I also think that A&F immediately understood that and that's why they took the shirts out of the stores. It was a "People think we're being racist, and we didn't mean for that to happen," move for them. The protestors got mad, A&F said "Sorry! That was a stupid mistake and it won't happen again." I am not sure what else they can do besides stop selling the shirts and apologizing to those they inadvertently offended.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

I think Mike is making a more subtle point. One that I wanted to bring up earlier. Would A&F given greater thought to this product if they knew their demographic was Asian? Because in this case they knew their demographic and inplicitly thought they wouldn't be offended.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

To my mind there are three levels of using a racial stereotype:

1) Intentionally racist. See Pineapple's and Al's examples above.

2) Cluelessly offensive, with no intent of racism. I cannot tell you the number of arguments I have had with friends over Jar Jar Binks (since I walked out of that movie saying, "Man, that was a stereotype" -- and no, I don't want to have that discussion here). In that particular case I have since come to the conclusion that Lucas as not intentionally using racist stereotypes; he was using types, and the types happened to match up with certain racist caricatures.

3) Tweaking, playing with the stereotype. In this category I would put the Fightin' Whities, or gays playing with and reclaiming with the word "queer" (or, say, the word "dyke" in the comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For). (Also in this category: most of the Institute for Official Cheer and the "Bob" imagery of the Church of the SubGenius, and maybe even this site, which I love so much.)

Now, what separates the three, as I've been arguing all along, is context. We have enough context to conclude that usually, wearing a Fightin' Whities shirt does not mean that the wearer wants to beat up white people. (If I saw, say, Nathan McCall wearing a Fightin' Whities shirt, I might start running. Come to think of it, I might start running no matter what he was wearing.) Similarly, if we saw Master V wearing the Wok-n-Bowl shirt, given the context, we would probably not deduce that he dislikes Asians.

With A&F, as I said, the problem is a lack of real context. They seem to have been shooting for #3, but without the context, they end up in #2. Their consumers can wear the shirts in the context of #3, but wearing the shirt and producing the shirt are two different acts.

Then comes the question of what the proper response is. For my money, a #2 offense does not deserve the same intensity of reaction as would a #1 offense. An eye roll, and a, "Well, they can go screw themselves, they're not getting any money from me," but not necessarily a big shut-down-the-company routine.

Pictures of the shirts are here, by the way. It's pretty standard Orientalist imagery.

I don't know if that gets at Mike's question -- if a tree falls in the forest and no one's offended, is it still racist? -- but that's my general take on it.

By the way: I can understand why AB wouldn't want to post in this particular thread, but I miss her.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

WG, that's a great post. I totally agree that it's the lack of context that's A&F's problem.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

We seem to keep getting a way from what I think is the core of this issue. If A&F created parody shirts using blacks, the odds are very good that they would realize they were being #1(using WG's criteria).

Why, then, would they be classified as a #2 or #3 because the groups are Asian? Why is context necessary for Asians but not blacks?

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

MOC, I would give two reasons.

One is that anti-black stereotypes have received more publicity than anti-Asian ones; and in general, discrimination against blacks is more widely known than discrimination against Asians. The Smithsonian doesn't feel the need to put up a whole section about slavery; they refer to slavery in the narrative, on the assumption that everyone knows that blacks were once slaves. But they do feel the need to devote a quarter of a wing to an exhibit on the Japanese internment camps, so apparently they feel that's something the audience needs to learn more about.

Second, navigating #3, for various reasons, seems to be more problematic with black stereotypes than Asian ones. For example, one of the most political Asian-Americans I knew at Swarthmore once posted outside her door a list: "100 Ways to Tell if You're Asian- American". It included things like "Your family buys rice and soy sauce in bulk." I don't think any such "100 Ways to Tell if You're Black" list exists. Comedians who have tried to negotiate #3 -- Chris Rock, for example; Richard Pryor; Aaron McGruder in Boondocks -- typically run into a lot of criticism.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

I'm still confused. WG, are you saying that because discrimination against blacks is more widely known than discrimination against Asians, it's okay and still funny to continue to use Asian stereotypes?

That's what bothers me about this the most. That all of the executives have just said that "they thought it would be funny." It's funny to draw Asians with slanty eyes and coolie hats! You know what? It's not. It's stereotypical and wrong and deeply hurtful, especially when it is coming from a store whose catalogs and stores market a brand of alleged All-American-ness.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

I'm still confused. WG, are you saying that because discrimination against blacks is more widely known than discrimination against Asians, it's okay and still funny to continue to use Asian stereotypes?

I don't think she's saying that at all. Not to speak for WG here, but it sounds to me like she's saying the line in the sand simply isn't as clear.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

I'm still confused. WG, are you saying that because discrimination against blacks is more widely known than discrimination against Asians, it's okay and still funny to continue to use Asian stereotypes?

Whoa! No, no, no, no, no! Didn't I post twice earlier that I thought this was a stupid, shitty idea on A&F's part?

What I meant was that by and large, for a variety of reasons, our culture seems to be a lot more flexible in general about Asian stereotypes than black ones; not that context isn't required when trying to bring the funny with Asian stereotypes (which A&F failed to realize), but that the person attempting #3 humor seems much more likely to succeed with Asian stereotypes than black ones.

And as I was trying to explain to MOC above, there a bunch of reasons for this. One is that I think Americans are, in general, less likely to be aware of the very long history of anti-Asian racism in this country (the immigration laws of the late 1800s/early 1900s, for example, or, for that matter, Michael Crichton's Rising Sun becoming a best seller -- that is one damn racist book) and thus more likely to regard jokes like the A&F shirts, or Chinese-restaurant jokes, as harmless. Two, the black community as a whole seems more sensitive to stereotypical humor than the Asian community does. If Master V were black and the cartoon had been about Sambo, I'm not as sure Al would have been as quick to speculate that Master V and AB would be wearing those shirts, because it seems to me less likely that the black community will "flip" an offensive offering.

That doesn't make what A&F did any less obnoxious. It might have led them to think it was less likely to be regarded as obnoxious, but they were wrong.

I'll admit to having argued that I don't think A&F deserves quite as bad a punishment for this foulup as they would for, say, refusing to hire Asians. But I never once stated that I thought this was "okay" behavior on their part.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

After reading my last post over:

. . . but that the person attempting #3 humor seems much more likely to succeed with Asian stereotypes than black ones . . .

should read

. . . but that the person attempting #3 humor, given the appropriate context, seems much more likely to succeed with Asian stereotypes than black ones.

Whereas it seems that humor based on black stereotypes, even with context, seems less likely to fly without controversy. The Boondocks, for example, plays with the concepts of the Angry Black Man (in Huey) and the Gangsta (in Riley), and it was generating a fair share of controversy long before September 11th -- this despite the fact that (a) the cartoonist, Aaron McGruder, is black and (b) there are other black characters in the strip, with a variety of dispositions and socioeconomic levels.

If an Asian-American company had put out the T-shirts, there probably would have been objections within the Asian-American community, but it would have been generally understood that the company employees were poking fun at themselves and thus defusing the stereotype.

Am I making more sense now?

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

Ok, WG. Thanks for clearing that up. It horrifies me to think that people would believe there are levels of "acceptable" racism. But I do think you're right in that there are types of racism that the general public, especially the parts of the general public that isn't on the receiving end of it, is completely unaware of. And that this thread's been a real eye opener for me in that regards.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

I think that the difference between people being quite sensitive about the feelings of Africans/African-Americans but less sensitive to the feelings of Asians is because the anti-racism campaign for African-Americans is very prevalent, very loud, and pretty constant. And, to be clear, I think that's really good.

Racism against Asians/Asian Americans is not often discussed, and in turn, is rarely pointed out as being a really ugly thing. I think we all know of the situations where ending racism is a generational issue, with grandparents being extremely racist, parents being less, and children unable to believe the views of their grandparents. In my opinion, that came from a lot of social conditioning and education, of which there has been plenty to end racism against African Americans, but not much at all to end it against Asian Americans (or anyone else, for that matter).

50 years ago, a town sign saying, "Don't let the sun go down on you here" (directed at black people) was not necessarily recognized as racist, but it was always racist. It was always ugly and always hurtful, even though fewer people recognized it as such. These shirts are racist, and not recognizing it doesn't make the people who produced it ok.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

Also, I think that humor that tweaks stereotypes receives just as much criticism in the Asian community as it does in the African- American community- it may not be as commented on in the mainstream media, but I know I've read articles and letters to the editor debating the appropriateness of the humor of the Secret Asian Man comic strip and Margaret Cho's bits about her mother, for instance.

Which is a whole different debate, because like the Boondocks or Chris Rock, it's their culture and the stereotypes they have dealt with their whole life to reclaim and subvert and tweak and whatnot, and totally different from the situation at hand.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

So Naked Hannah, is it possible for the shirts themselves to be racist without A&F acting in a racist manner?

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

Well, yeah. That's not a debate I want to get into, being neither black nor Asian-American.

I've heard a lot about "internalized anti-Semitism" (leveled at Philip Roth, among others) but in general, how different minority cultures deal with stereotypical humor in the US is just a hard discussion to have when almost everyone participating is white.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

Word, WG.

And Mike? I don't think there is. Putting out a racist product is a racist act.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

I could not disagree more.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

I hesitate to ask, but how, Mike? How can producing something racist not be a racist act? How can saying something racist not be a racist act? Can acting out a racist act not be a racist act?

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

I guess because, in my mind, racism implies intent. It says that you feel your culture is superior, and everything else is, therefore, inferior.

And I do not think for one minute that this is the mindset at A&F. Not from seeing their catalogs, or viewing their products. Not based on the fact that one selection of T-shirts offends some people.

Are the shirts themselves racist? Look, I don't think so, but I'm not Asian-American. I think the shirts are insensitive clearly offensive to some people, and that the company was right to yank them from the shelves once the depth of their mistake became known. I do not think that the act of releasing a shirt that some people call racist makes A&F a racist company. It just made a poor choice.

I also think it's funny that everyone here seems to be assuming that the shirts were designed by white males, for white males. A&F is a multi-million dollar company that, I think we can assume, did not get this way by being dumb as far as product selection and marketing is concerned.

Don't y'all think they test-marketing these, at least in front of focus groups, at least some of whose members were Asian? Would that make the company less reprehensible to some of you if it did?

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

Or, in other words, I think there's a difference between being racist and just being dumb, and that A&F is the latter more than it is the former.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

I agree with Mike. I would think, without any details to back this up, that A&F acted out of ignorance here, not racism. Whether that's an excuse or not is debatable, but it's clear in my mind that being an ignorant racist is less an offense than being intentionally racist.

Relevant story: My grandmother. She's generally not an offensive person, but last summer, she was talking about a trip to Mexico where she, upon getting off the bus, was approached by locals trying to sell her things. She saw something she wanted, and (her words), "Jew'd" them down a few dollars.

Was it offensive? Hell yes. Did she mean to disparage those of a Jewish faith? No, even though she did. I can forgive her for her indiscretion. It would be a lot harder if she actually expressed hatred of Jews.

I do understand why the images on these shirts are offensive. I hadn't seen them until one of the more recent links. The caricature of the Asian with the slanted eyes and that hat is long outdated.

The slogan, however, I will admit, I thought it was funny. I wish it was a real laundromat. It never occurred to me that it could be making fun of an accent; I just thought it was working with soundalike words. In a similar vein to my childhood nickname of Fred "I don't give a" Damstra. Comedy based on similar sounding words is one of the basics ("Orange who?" "Orange you glad I didn't say banana?"). All I'm saying is that Wong/Wrong is close enough without assigning that to a stereotyped accent.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

My father's mother used to use the phrase "Jew down," but stopped -- far as I know -- after she acquired a Jewish daughter-in-law.

On the other hand, my mother's mother still bitches about the schvartze every so often (and my mother scolds her).

I think part of Mike's question, if not all of it, is "Who determines who is racist?" It relates somewhat to hate-crime legislation and critical race theory -- i.e. taking into account the effect upon the victim when determining the severity of the crime. (Unfortunately I had 1/6th of a not-very-good Con Law class on this. Anyone more familiar -- Jessamyn? -- feel free to step in.) As MOC's training implied, the more common practice now is that the victim determines racism, not the perpetrator. To the victim, unintentional (on the part of the perpetrator) racism feels just as hurtful as intentional racism, and thus the two are declared equally morally obnoxious, regardless of the perpetrator's intent.

Therefore, in this case, if the offended party (who does not necessarily have to be Asian or Asian-American) declares the shirts racist, then A&F is racist, regardless of A&F's actual intent. Mike seems (forgive me if I'm putting words into your mouth, Mike) to argue that intent should be factored in, and thus if there is evidence that A&F's intent was not racist, they can be non-racist and yet still print racist T-shirts.

The complication goes two ways: to argue that intent matters subtracts power from the victim and returns it to the perpetrator, whereas our current general thinking is more inclined towards giving it to the victim; but to argue that intent doesn't matter is to make offense almost entirely subjective. (Another example: if a woman is treated for what looks like a rape, and she can't remember much but doesn't think she's been raped and doesn't want to press charges, has a crime been committed?)

With a corporation it's hard to determine intent anyway. You could argue that if one person in the A&F chain of command said, "Hey, this might come off as demeaning to Asians," and got dismissed, then that shows clear racism; but if they gathered a number of Asian employees together, showed them the shirts, and said, "We're not going to print these if you think there might be even a hint of a problem," does that absolve the company? And even if that scenario did come to pass, did the hypothetical Asian employees feel free to dissent? Or do you measure racism by how A&F behaves towards the people who actually make the shirts?

I'm still inclined to frame this in terms of etiquette and class, because using such imagery is tacky no matter how you slice it. (The brand implications are pretty interesting.) There is a difference between using racial stereotypes to consciously assert power and just being obnoxious -- but again, it still goes back to intent, and that "Two Wongs will make it white" shirt in particular gives me the damn creeps. So I don't know.

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2002

I was thinking about this last night. You know, being an ignorant racist is, in my opinion, just as bad. Y'all really don't think most of the racist people out there sit around thinking, gosh, I'm so cool and racist, do you? I think those are the exceptions rather than the rule. It's the same with sexism. Lots of people who are sexist probably don't think of themselves as sexist. That doesn't excuse them.

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2002

So how do you know when you're not being racist? Because if racism is an external rather than an internal judgment, then it would seem to me that no one could ever say, "I am not racist." As long as one other person believes you're racist, you're racist, regardless of what you yourself might think.

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2002

You know, I don't know that you can ever say, definitively, I'm totally free of racism. I know I'd feel uncomfortable making such a statement. I know I TRY not to, and I could definitely say my intent isn't, but there are probably times when I think or say things that are actually based on prejudices or ignorance I'm unaware of. In fact, I can think of a time recently. And when it was brought to my attention, I spent some time really looking at that, and why it had been wrong, and in my apology to the person offended explained how I had never realized that about myself, and how ugly it seemed, and that I was doing my best to work through and move past that belief. I think that's the best you can do.

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2002

Hannah, you said earlier that "printing racist shirts is a racist act." Does that mean that A&F is a racist company? I've been assuming your answer would be yes, but rereading the thread I realized you haven't said explicitly one way or the other.

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2002

Mike seems (forgive me if I'm putting words into your mouth, Mike) to argue that intent should be factored in, and thus if there is evidence that A&F's intent was not racist, they can be non-racist and yet still print racist T-shirts.

Sort of -- all you have to do is change the tense of one verb in the last sentence. I think they can be non-racist and still have printed racist T-shirts. The fact that they pulled the shirts after the protests began is, in that view, a point in A&F's favor.

I mean, Hannah, is Fred's grandmother a racist because of her unfortunate choice of words? Does her one phrase imply, for lack of better words, a racist intent? Does a poor choice of t-shirt designs imply a racist intent from A&F? In both cases, I simply don't think it does.

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2002

I can't say much that hasn't already been said but I thought of this thread today when a Pontiac Fiero (with an Asian-American, well I didn't ask but he was of Asian lineage) passed me with a back window that read (in the same font as the A&F shirt)... Got Rice?

I didn't know how to react but I did chuckle

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2002

I think that ignorant racism is the worst kind. It just further illustrates how slander and hatefulness has been allowed to slip back into society. (not that it ever left) It has become almost main stream. If someone is being offended then it is defenitly racism, regardless of how cute, creative, innovative, catchy, nonchalant, completely unintentional, or laughable the act was. I honestly cannot believe that not a single person at Abercrombie went, "Hey...thats kinda..." and talked to Joe CEO about it. Abercrombie is all about cutting edge, overtly sexual, controversial marketing, and this is just pushing it a little bit further. But, theres no such thing as bad publicity...

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2002

The poor kid riced out his Fiero? How sad. :/

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2002