In extreme example of why proofreading matters, a school in Massachusetts sent home a menu including on one day “KKK Chicken Tenders.” It was supposed to read “KK Chicken Tenders” for krispy, krunchy, but someone accidentally added the not so special K. In some ways the fact the food is chicken tenders, a culinary cousin of the racially meaningful staple fried chicken, makes this gaffe even worse. I think KKK Turkey Tetrazzini would not be as much of a problem but KKK tacos would be. What a shock for parents pursuing the menu to see what is store for the week. I bet a second and third set of eyes will be looking at menus in the future.
Perhaps I am just obtuse this morning, but when I first saw that a restaurant owned by two white people was calling itself “Roundeye Noodle Bar” I did not see why it was offensive. Then I read further and came to understand that “Roundeye” is a play on “slanteye” an insult often directed at Asian-Americans. Thus, this is a restaurant featuring a typically Asian food using a name that is a play on a derogatory term applied to Asian-Americans. Now I get it. However, now I wonder if my not getting it is a sign that, yes, I am an obtuse white guy no matter how hard I try to be enlightened, or is this just a situation where the wordplay really is offensive only after close analysis?
I have been recently reading about the history of what are called chop suey fonts, fonts that in their design refer to Asian calligraphy and thus evoke a connection to things Asian in the mind of the reader. Consider for example:
This question of Asian fonts came up because Pete Hoekstra’s controversial attack ad featuring an Asian-American actress speaking broken English directed viewers to this website.
I do not think the font itself is racist. However, if it reinforces oriental stereotypes or fosters a sense of Asians as a threatening “other,” as in the Hoekstra, ad then the font is being used in a racist manner. The article “Stereo Types” by Paul Shaw on the history of this font and other “ethnic” fonts explains the origins and notes that the chop suey fonts were used by Chinese restaurant owners in San Francisco marketing chop suey. So, the font is not a nefarious cultural mockery contrived by evil occidental minds. Besides, it would be hard to say that font, an arrangement of ink on a page in the old fashioned sense, is racist. It might not be an authentic representation of the principles of Chinese calligraphy, but that is as far as it goes.
A Dallas school decided to show Red Tails to fifth graders, but the auditorium was too small, so they showed it only to the boys. The district leaders thought it would appeal to boys more than girls. Girls could watch Akeelah and the Bee. I wonder why they just did not at least make it a matter of choice, see one of the two. This decision reinforces all sorts of gender stereotypes while also implying there is no educational value in viewing the experience of someone of another gender. However, as a teacher, I can see how it might have happened. Those in charge needed a solution, the auditorium was too small, the seemingly best quick way to select students who might be interested was by using a gender based assumption. It was a mistake, but a human mistake. It can easily be fixed by having another screening, this time for the girls.
This video discussing the test and applying it to the Academy Awards best picture nominees is excellent. It comes to the conclusion that two movies clearly pass the test, “The Descendants,” and “The Help” with two other movies coming close depending on how one interprets short snippets of conversation, “Hugo” and “Midnight in Paris.”
The video also talks of applying the movie to analyze the roles of characters of color in film using Alaya Dawn Johnson’s modification:
1.The film has to have two People of Color in it.
2. Who talk to each other.
3. About something other than a white person.
Only one Academy Award best picture nominee, “The Help,” passes this version.
Yes, these tests are very reductionist and do not guarantee that a film is good, unbiased, or woman centered, but they are useful as a way to see trends in an industry. Also, it matters what group of films one looks at. For example, by looking at best picture nominees, the analysis of the Academy Awards misses “Iron Lady.”
I just read this article “From Negro Creek to Wop Draw, Place Names Offend,” today on place names that may not have been offensive in the past, but that are now offensive. Some names mentioned are, ”Wop Draw in Wyoming; Jewtown, Ga.; Beaner Lake, Wash.; Wetback Tank reservoir in New Mexico and Polack Lake in Michigan” as well as Pickaninny Buttes pictured above. There have been campaigns to change names, and some states have made revisions. For example, nine states are working to eliminate the word squaw. Although I did not realize this fact growing up, squaw as a term is offensive to Native Americans. The article says that squaw is, ”a slang word first given to Native women that came to mean both a part of the female genitalia and a woman of ill repute.” Dictionary.com offers the following definitions, ”1. (Often Offensive) a North American Indian woman, especially a wife. 2.(Slang: Disparaging and Offensive) a. a wife.b. any woman or girl.”
Given this information, I am chagrined to note that in a park where I live there is Squaw Rock Picnic Area, named after a “Squaw Rock” carving. Back in 2008 the local paper published an article looking at the name. In it a park spokesperson, Bob Rotatori, stated, ”[The name] kind of stuck, and, as far as we know, nobody seems to mind.” I wonder what it would take to get the name changed? I wonder how many people in the Greater Cleveland area even know about the offensive nature of the term and would be interested in getting the name changed? The tension between historical tradition and modern sensitivities can be tricky to negotiate.
I just read a review of the book Our Black Year by Maggie Anderson, the story of a family trying only to shop in black owned establishments for a year. Needless to say such an endeavor turned out to be a great challenge and leads to various meditations on self-determination and economics. I look forward to getting my hands on the book. The project reminded me of this passage from Malcolm X’s speech “The Ballot or the Bullet.”
“The economic philosophy of black nationalism is pure and simple. It only means that we should control the economy of our community. Why should white people be running all the stores in our community? Why should white people be running the banks of our community? Why should the economy of our community be in the hands of the white man? Why? If a black man can’t move his store into a white community, you tell me why a white man should move his store into a black community. The philosophy of black nationalism involves a re-education program in the black community in regards to economics. Our people have to be made to see that any time you take your dollar out of your community and spend it in a community where you don’t live, the community where you live will get poorer and poorer, and the community where you spend your money will get richer and richer.”
On the one hand it seems simple, but how does it apply today? And, of course, there is the uneven comparison argument, why is a white person who says s/he will not shop in black stores, castigated as a racist, while a black person who says s/he will not shop in white stores is celebrated for supporting the economic uplift of his/her people? To me the power differential in society renders this argument moot, but on the surface it is catchy.
With the Academy Awards tonight, I offer this fact I did not know. When Hattie McDaniel won an Academy Award for her role in Gone With the Wind she had a long walk to take to accept the award. She could not sit with the rest of the cast in the auditorium. She had to sit in the back at a segregated table.
Thus, American society has clearly come a long way. Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer will sit with the rest of the actors. The cameras will provide attention equal or greater to that given white actors. But they will be there for playing maids, just like Hattie McDaniel.
Yes, that is an oversimplification, but the reduction does show how far we have come and how far we have to go.
A simple question, why are plastic figurines played with by girls called dolls while plastic figurines played with by boys are action figures? Note that the gender of the toy is irrelevant. I had a Princess Leia action figure growing up and there are Ken dolls. The label depends on the gender of the child.
In a recent interview from CBS Sports Jeremy Lin talks about how, “a lot of people say I’m deceptively athletic and deceptively quick, and I’m not sure what’s ‘deceptive.’ But it could be the fact that I’m Asian-American.” The word deceptive carries a lot of weight there. It seems to imply that the speaker when looking at Lin did not think he was fast or athletic but the speaker was deceived. What might have deceived the speaker? This language would likely be used in other cases with large players, tall players, or other players whose body type would suggest slowness, say offensive linemen in football. Since Lin’s size would not preclude foot speed and athleticism, I suspect the viewer was deceived by his or her own racial preconceptions. In a way the use of the word deceptive in this case reminds me of the use of the word articulate to describe eloquent African-Americans, a coded statement that the person in question has remarkably exceeded the speaker’s rather low, rather biased expectations.
