I’d just like to make an observation about the form of some of the arguments in this discussion, and to suggest that there is a reasonable way to address situations like this. Several people have argued, for example, that taken to the extreme, the taking of offense could extend to, say, a little white girl wearing a Pocahontas costume because she loves the Disney movie. This is not a terrible argument–but note that taken to the extreme, the contrary argument could justify more grossly offensive things, like blackface. As a result, what we really have here is a difficult line-drawing exercise. Where’s the line between something that is deserving of criticism and something that is harmless fun? Where’s the line, beyond which, punishment is justified? These lines aren’t easy to draw, and we shouldn’t pretend that they are. I note that somebody above said that they’d draw the line between the sombreros at the tequila party and the sombreros while mowing the lawn. That line might make sense, but we may have to base it on something subjective, like “how bad” we collectively think something is. What’s not helpful, of course, is somebody who thinks everything is bad, as well as somebody who thinks nothing is.
Which is why the reasonable person standard exists in the first place. I thought you opposed the imposition of such a standard earlier in the thread because it gave people a license to be offensive? Is there some distinction you are drawing between the two?
The line might be:
Is the cultural practice or national costume widely embraced in celebrations by citizens in that country?
Lederhosen & bodice-popping dirnls in beerhalls in Germany: YES
Sombreros in fiestas & parades in Mexico: YES
Blackface in African & Caribbean countries: NO
Then there’s the annual hand-wringing in the Netherlands over Zwarte Piet
http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21588960-debate-holiday-tradition-exposes-racial-attitudes-zwarte-piet-racism
I guess the distinction I would draw is that reasonable discussion is required. If I have never heard before that “gypped” is an offensive term, under a reasonable person standard, I shouldn’t be criticized for using it. But once I’ve been informed that it is offensive, it seems to me that the standard changes.
I think it’s interesting to consider the mini-sombrero case in the light of what the party organizers knew. I think the wording of their invitation strongly suggests that they weren’t really surprised to learn that some aspects of the party offended some people.
Let me add: as I think I said above, in my opinion, avoiding offending others unnecessarily is valuable in itself, so I don’t think the end of the story is whether a “reasonable person” would find this particular thing offensive. I think if somebody actually does find it offensive, then the right thing to do is to consider whether there is any countervailing reason to do it. I will say that countervailing reasons could include the fact that many people like to do it, and that it isn’t deemed offensive by many people (including other people who are similar to the offended person). This is why the name of the Washington Redskins is still controversial–it’s clearly offensive to some people, but some other similar people aren’t offended, and a lot of people like the name because of (I guess) tradition. Personally, I would change the name if the decision was under my control–but there are other situations in which I would go the other way. Again, nobody should pretend that these line-drawing exercises are easy.
@Ohiodad51 I suppose we just read that differently. I don’t think there’s anything different about her statements, given her family likely emigrated more recently than most Italian-American families.
Seems that Warner Brothers are developing a full length movie based on the “Speedy Gonzalez” character that was described as racist earlier in this thread.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/speedy-gonzales-animated-movie-development-880491
It should be a big hit at Bowdoin’s movie night.
While Speedy himself is an admirable character, there were other characters in those old cartoons who depicted negative stereotypes. (There are lots of things in old cartoons that would be problematic today, of course.) If Warners does make a new Speedy Gonzalez movie, I suspect it will be different from those old cartoons in this respect. Maybe it will have Speedy running over a giant wall.
@Hunt,
I agree. The problem I see with the traditional Speedy cartoons was that Speedy was presented as a foil to the “regular” Mexican [mice] characters. He was industrious, brave, intelligent and sober while the secondary characters represented all the worst stereotypes of Mexicans-impoverished, shiftless drunks.
But apparently those other mice weren’t a big problem for Mexican people?
Maybe forty years ago it was refreshing to see a cartoon with one Mexican character who wasn’t a negative stereotype.
They may not have been perceived as a big problem in the 50s-70s, but it’s possible they’d come across differently today.
I watched Speedy Gonzales cartoons as a child, and for the life of me I can’t remember anybody but Speedy. I guess that doesn’t say much for the development of the other characters. It’s easy to remember everyone who costarred with Bugs Bunny.
Fraternity outrage at Case Western
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/04/case_western_reserve_fraternit.html
Every time I read about “sombreros incidents”, I keep thinking of that old Saturday Night Live, Killer Bee skit:
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/the-killer-bees/n8622
Clearly this skit also provided no legitimate historical context and includes sexist language!
SNL makes me think of the cheeseburger/cheeseburger skits with John Belushi. You could go very recursive on this.
Was the skit making fun of Greeks by trading on the stereotype of diner owners (you know, despite the fact that they actually do own diners at higher rates than many other ethnic groups) and mocking those who did not have perfect command of English?
Or were the Greeks culturally appropriating OUR culture - and profiting from it - because cheeseburgers, chips and Coke are not traditional Greek foods?
I always thought those skits were making fun of the clueless “American” customers who tried to order something other than a cheeburger.
You guys do realize that the skit was based on the actual people who ran the actual Billy Goat Tavern, right? Pretty sure that the Belushi/Akroyd era SNL was not laser focused on current progressive orthodoxy on the supreme importance of cultural victimology.
Yes, fully aware it’s based on the Billy Goat Tavern!
Yeah, I probably should have thought about who was actually posting those two messages. But given where this thread has been, I missed the sarcasm.
You have to read the Pearls before Swine comic strip today! It is spot on this issue.
http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine
Look for 4/15/2016 strip