to what extent should you hold people from other cultures to ideas of racism found in your own culture?

Like, if you spend a couple of hundred years enslaving Africans and ppl of color, you're going to have to give up your time-honored practice of blackface at the holidays? Yeah, that kind of makes sense.

In order to sort this out I would cling mightily to the idea of respect as the antithesis of racism. For example, if a person of another culture were to do something that appears racist by the standard of your own culture, but the other person considered as a positive sign of respect, I'd say it passes as non-racist.

Having said that, the chances that anything you preceive as racist being racist in fact are pretty goddamn high, no matter what the cultural background is. Oftentimes it may not be intended as disrepectful, but that's only because it was given so little thought that the person is just blind to its racism, not because the racism isn't there.

the first time I saw banania in a french grocery store I did a double take

They've discontinued the use of the African guy, iIrc.

I just looked on wordreference and the translation of ghostwriter in French is still nègre which is otherwise equivalent to the n-word.

wikipedia says this is the current logo:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/Banania4.jpg

"oh, i'm not the author, i'm just his n..."

xp

Wow, I remember the furore about him still being there in the 90's.

Apparently, he's a Senegalese infantryman and was introduced in 1915 during the war. I always thought the name and later banana motif in the 50's ones were racist (and perhaps they were at some level) but it contains banana flour.

Yeah, GTFO, basically, though it would be "I served as his n-- on that book," transliterated.

i'm inclined to let globalization/culture-flattening take care of this problem, but at the same time, I feel like a lot of people's discomfort is more about having something unpleasant shoved in their face, rather than the unpleasantness going on.

Was planning on getting coffee tonight from a Vienna-based chain that uses this logo:

http://gapersblock.com/drivethru/meinl.gif

What do you guys think?

It's a brunette girl in a Peter Pan collar with a windsock on her face.

jaymc, that image seems intended to call to mind a fez, thus Turkey, thus turkish coffee. The pointy little nose seems to preclude any veiled reference to Africans. It seems more in the tradition of the black-paper cutout silhouette.

This would be an older version of the Meinl logo:

http://askmissa.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Meinl-Kaffee-Coffee.jpg

I dunno, it's not as overtly stereotypical as the Banania, though it is obviously a holdover from a time when Orientalism/exoticism/colonialism were prevalent and intertwined.

There's a certain arrogance involved in making the image of a black person serve your commercial interests in a white society, fer sure. The newer logo tiptoes around that issue far enough that it isn't clearly the same issue any more.

uncle ben, aunt jemima

There's a certain arrogance involved in making the image of a black person serve your commercial interests in a white society, fer sure.

i don't intend this as a knock, but there's a certain oddness in reacting with suspicion to all commercial representations of nonwhite people in a multiracial society. then again, history being what it is...

I am also a bit puzzled - black people cant be the face of a coffee logo?

Austria is not especially multi-racial, as I recall.

Well, granted, I get that is your point, but considering coffee is usually associated with places like Kenya, I guess I see that as why such logos/mascots exist. Not at all suggesting they should ever look stereotyped or silly, of course (cf Darkie toothpaste etc) but this one seems rather innocuous to me?

"mascot" == clue about subtext

Austria is not especially multi-racial, as I recall.

more so now than then, though, right? don't know much about the demographics, tbh. logo doesn't strike me as offensive, but i've been tone-deaf abt such things in the past.

I'd say the older logo traversed some rather shakey ground, but the newer, simplified one pulls back several paces from that questionable edge, which is prob why it was revamped.

i remember working in a coffee shop and they decided they were going to start using lucaffe and a rep came with all this merch for me because i was the only one working that day and i had been told to like put some stuff up but when i saw it i was like "really?" and left a note for my manager saying "i know you told me to put some of this on display but are you sure???"

http://www.fhhosting.com/fhwebpresence/sites/lucaffe/logo.jpg

I'm sure if I go to the supermarket I'll see jars of coffee with photos of Africans on the label; as Trayce says, it's a natural association to make. Where the Meinl brand is slightly different is that the logo doesn't come out of nowhere; they're intentionally drawing on a historical image that would be problematic today, and the continuity could be construed as an endorsement of such.

As these things go though, I'd say it's pretty mild.

xp - wtf???

It seems more in the tradition of the black-paper cutout silhouette.

Funny, I was doing research on the logo just now, and apparently Kara Walker has actually coopted the image in her art.

From a 2007 article in Austrian Times:

Critics of the Meinl logo, a dark-skinned Moor wearing a fez, have undertaken an initiative called "Mein Julius" or "My Julius" in protest against it as symbolic of inequality, discrimination, exploitation and racism. Julius Meinl V is the current head of the Meinl Group. Meinl official Marcel Löffler, however, told "Die Presse" that the logo was not racist but a symbol of the sovereignty of the Turkish sultan, who indirectly introduced Austrians to coffee years ago. Löffler added that the figure in the logo was "an expert on coffee." Austrian poster designer Joseph Binder created the logo in 1924.

This is kind of fascinating:

http://northamerica.meinl.com/storage/northamerica/logo_history.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1280326097736

(I was being a bit disingenuous above; I knew that the logo I posted wasn't the current one.)

Oh man, Kara Walker's stuff is pretty amazing.

Do the couple American Meinl coffeeshops have that logo displayed? After I went there I found it kind of weird that their entire US storefront presence is two shops in Chicago.

The bottom one, yes.

And I have no idea why they haven't expanded beyond the three stores in Chicago. (There are two full-service cafes, and one store that's basically just a to-go counter for coffee and pastries.) One of them's just a few blocks from my apartment, though. And the coffee and desserts are reliably good.

In order to sort this out I would cling mightily to the idea of respect as the antithesis of racism. For example, if a person of another culture were to do something that appears racist by the standard of your own culture, but the other person considered as a positive sign of respect, I'd say it passes as non-racist.

not a knock on you personally but i seriously disagree with this, and i think this is one of the many negative things that comes out of trying to determine what is "offensive" rather than what is hurtful. we (white ppl) spend a lot of time trying to wade through the "offensive" waters and we forget that things aren't offensive arbitrarily, they're offensive because they're hurtful to the people they're marginalizing and they add to a culture of oppression.

99% of the time whenever someone is getting called out for appropriating native american culture the racist person ends up whining "but i'm honoring your beautiful culture! (by painting my face random colors and wearing a dollar store war bonnet)"; seeing as cultural appropriation/misunderstanding/ignorance is one of the biggest things attributing to the oppression of native americans, that excuse will never fly. intention really doesn't matter when what you're doing is damaging.

The 'articulate' example from the racism thread is a good example of what Dayo means here, I think.

about ten years ago i did get chastised for assigning a public speaking project, on whose rubric were allocated 10 points for 'clear and articulate voice.' i :get: that there's racial baggage to this term, but at the same time IN A PUBLIC SPEAKING CLASS I felt it was an apropos component of a grade.

― rocognise gnome (remy bean), Thursday, 19 January 2012 09:48 (Yesterday) Bookmark

I'd never heard of this (although David Starkey's charming bit about 'hearing David Lammy on the radio and thinking he's white' came to mind once ppl explained) but I'm not going to stop using the word 'articulate'. I'll now be aware of how it could possibly be construed in some contexts and avoid as appropriate, but tbqh I'm not sure I've really got a grip on how and when it's used in an offensive context.
Also, not racism but I'm still shocked when I read 'spaz' in a US newspaper. Would this ever get 'banned' because of possible offence?

p sure 'articulate' won't ever be a naughty word in any context, tbh- that just seemed a really wrong-headed stance for them to take.

Well that goes back to what (I think, anyway) dayo was getting at with starting this thread. He pointed out on another thread that US ppl were saying "why can't we say 'gyp'?".

A good Aus example: aboriginal people here often use the phrase "blackfulla" or "blackfeller" in reference to their peers, and its ok for others to do so - its what they use. I saw someone once say this here (maybe it was myself, but tbh I cant recall now) and got a couple of apalled responses. Ditto with the use of the word "wog" in aussie slang, though I will admit that one's more sticky, but it - to me anyway - goes along the same lines as the gay community reclaiming "queer" I guess? I dont know.

aussie mong thread!

Ditto with the use of the word "wog" in aussie slang, though I will admit that one's more sticky, but it - to me anyway - goes along the same lines as the gay community reclaiming "queer" I guess?

Was talking to an Australian girl once, of Maltese extraction, and she referred to herself as a "wog", I was horrified I must admit.

'referred to herself'

i mean, on whose behalf were you getting offended/shocked?

not in a snarky way, i'm always interested in why/where ppl draw these lines in different contexts etc.

I mean surely anyone can call themselves what they want.

i'm not saying it's that simple, either

i mean, on whose behalf were you getting offended/shocked?

On my behalf, I suppose, it's a horrible expression. Plus the context was sort of "Oh we don't mind what we get called, it's all good fun".

Not, "I've decided to reclaim this word. I am woman. I am strong"

Lots of people appropriate others' cultures in a thoughtless manner without being truly racist. For example lots of people wear fake American Indian clothing or accessories. I don't think many of them intend to be racist. Where it crosses a line is where the person defines it as "honoring your beautiful culture"! As opposed to "that fake Indian t-shirt looked cool"...I know it's not authentic! Or "I genuinely like that fake blues music."

Well that goes back to what (I think, anyway) dayo was getting at with starting this thread. He pointed out on another thread that US ppl were saying "why can't we say 'gyp'?".

Mind you, one of the stations there now airs My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, so I'm sure they'll start understanding better soon... ;_;

Not sure 'pikey' is used much these days anyway, seems outdated to me

I heard it for the first (and possibly only) time in Lock, Stock and whatever it's called.

In my work I have a lot of people coming to Paris from asian countries (china, vietnam, etc) for short visits.
most of the times they are literally shocked/scared by black people.
I tend to think it's not that big a deal but they definitely ARE racists when you think about it (although it's because they are not used to/have never seen black people in their country...).

I have never heard the word "pikey" used outside of a Guy Ritchie film.

On a related note, in his recent Sherlock Holmes film there's a group of Romani people who end up being introduced to the plot to aid the protagonists and there's this moment of awkward "are they going to steal our stuff from us as we walk through this camp" moment where you can't tell if they're acknowledging that yes, possessions of people from outside the group are often taken and this is just a cultural thing, or if they're trying to portray them as a bunch of thieves.

marco-pierre white (prick) described a shambolic showing as a 'pikeys picnic' in devil's kitchen a few years back, that ass ?lee? from blue requested a private meeting to register his huge offence, tbh he came across as an absolute tool on the issue as well, self-aggrandisement through opportunistic dramatics.

pikey is used like chav

possessions of people from outside the group are often taken and this is just a cultural thing

wow that's a neat trick.

didn't want to say

I obviously don't really like this depiction? Obviously still Guy Ritchie just uncritically portraying stereotypes

"eenie meenie minie moe"

what!!

just looked it up, holy shit

that iirc is my first exposure to the n word, and it was just another nonsense means-nothing word to me like i dunno corporation or architect until i was 13 or so

I still don't know what architect means tho

Interesting that the 'n' word version seems to have come to the UK from the US

darragh, can you really not get your head around liverpool's/suarez's stance that the word 'negro' can be used without any offence intended in uruguay?

On my behalf, I suppose, it's a horrible expression. Plus the context was sort of "Oh we don't mind what we get called, it's all good fun".

Not, "I've decided to reclaim this word. I am woman. I am strong"

― Charles Kennedy Jumped Up, He Called 'Oh No'. (Tom D.), Friday, January 20, 2012 3:10 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah, but aren't people allowed to call themselves whatever they like in whatever spirit they like (to the extent that they aren't denigrating anyone else in doing so)? we don't all have to share the same seriousness about these ideas, after all. i mean, i can call myself a "fucking asshole" without getting offended, but if anyone else were to call me that, i'd be pissed.

Sure, negro can be used w/o offense in Uruguay but if you spend an entire football game calling me Yank or screaming "USA" at me, I'm going to question your motives.

It's not as if Evra spent that game forgetting the color of his skin.

I wonder what the FA would have done if Suarez had spent the entire game calling him a "frog", though.

the apt term wd be 'seppo cunt', michael

i can call myself a "fucking asshole" without getting offended, but if anyone else were to call me that, i'd be pissed.

Of course, she can call herself whatever she likes, that's her lookout

chris, i can get my head around the concept, i am a very very clever person tbh

I just disregard it as applicable in this case, because well lol tbh

Lots of people appropriate others' cultures in a thoughtless manner without being truly racist. For example lots of people wear fake American Indian clothing or accessories. I don't think many of them intend to be racist. Where it crosses a line is where the person defines it as "honoring your beautiful culture"! As opposed to "that fake Indian t-shirt looked cool"...I know it's not authentic! Or "I genuinely like that fake blues music."

― โตเกียวเหมียวเหมียว aka Don Nots (Mount Cleaners), Friday, January 20, 2012 3:25 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this also seems very strange to me. there isn't really any single "correct" stance WR2 stuff like this, other than "be respectful and give some thought to history, power relationships and the way that other people might view things." it's offensive for a white person to wear blackface, for instance, regardless of whether they're ostensibly doing it to "honor" something or just for cheap laughs.

same's true (to a lesser extent, since there isn't a specific history of "redface") when american whites appropriate stereotypically native american imagery. the history is too painful and the power imbalance too severe for this sort of thing to be devoid of troubling implications.

avoid fancy dress, basically

or at least go as one of the other three ghostbusters

the apt term wd be 'seppo cunt', michael

You know how Brazilian players are wont to give themselves nicknames? It would be awesome to see an American player put 'Seppo' on his shirt.

the apt term wd be 'seppo cunt', michael

increased my word power today

just looked it up, holy shit

this new gum commercial doesn't bother me per se, but I do look at it a little askance every time it comes on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br0MA_PVM4I

I heard the old version on the playground, but never heard it again until Pulp Fiction came out.

I wonder what the FA would have done if Suarez had spent the entire game calling him a "frog", though.

― After all, I grew up masturbating at my parents' house (Michael White), vrijdag 20 januari 2012 16:09 (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Or "frogbs"! Would've meant a life-long ban iirc

Frogbs too difficult to say

whenever someone is getting called out for appropriating native american culture the racist person ends up whining "but i'm honoring your beautiful culture! (by painting my face random colors and wearing a dollar store war bonnet)

Claiming an action is respectful in one's culture is just that, a claim. If there isn't any evidence to back it up, then it's a bogus claim. I do not see any objective evidence that western cultures do honor to non-western native cultures by dressing in dime store caricatures of their clothing on random occasions.

However, if that same person were to make a sustained effort, on a daily basis, to adopt native american dress, to learn native american customs and traditions from native american elders and to follow those traditions in a spirit of humility, regardless of the taunts and jibes he'd have to live with constantly, then you'd at least have to give him credit for trying, even if the results were less than sparkling.

no, because the first person is dressing up once and the other is insane

but insane in a highly respectful manner

i'd wager it would be more respectful to accept a certain uncrossable gulf that cannot be bridged by effort or rhetoric, and it seems both people in your example do not accept this.

I'm trying to remember if we sang "catch a n***** by the toe" as kids, like really little kids, because we sure as hell didnt sing "catch a tiger" - thats something I only learned/heard in my early teens from american TV shows, so. Maybe we said "catch a tigger"? I really cant recall! I jst feel very weird thinking I ever used that word unknowingly ergh.

avoid fancy dress, basically

― (govtname)mac (darraghmac), Friday, 20 January 2012 15:16 (four years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

or at least go as one of the other three ghostbusters

― (govtname)mac (darraghmac), Friday, 20 January 2012 15:16 (four years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I actually think that this sorted it tbh