Is this Racist?

[lacktheknack]

"Oriental is an outdated term"

My vocabulary isn't that massive. I'm now reduced to referring to the skin color as "yellowish".

Ooh, didn't want THAT to come back now, did you?

 

[Risingblade]

You'd have to ask people of that race

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Nothing wrong with either the necklace, nor with the adjective "oriental". It means "from the orient" which is a valid descriptor and carries zero negative connotations.

The T-Shirts however, I would agree with the claims. They clearly draw charicatures of a culture, of cultural icons. I will admit that I don't doubt that the shirts aren't intended to be offensive, but despite intentions drawing such graphics is racist, offensive or not. In its way, it is little different than, for example (and this is an extreme example purely to illustrate), "the evil jew [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Fec8-kd2Sh4/TfgVW4YUcvI/AAAAAAAAEUs/I3IsEey0US8/s1600/EvilJew01.png]", the "american tourist" [http://www.akeyinthedoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/two-american-tourists1.jpg], "the frenchman [http://www.newsbiscuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Frenchman.jpg]" and so on. Charicatures and stereotypes are racist, whether or not they cause any offense.

 

[Micalas]

It is not up to you.

This is very true. But it's up to us whether or not we give a fuck.

People really need to stop bitching. You may not like it but intent is very much a big part of life. Your example of murdering your kids with the intent of "saving them" is moot because civilized society has generally decided that intentionally killing someone is a no-no.

Unless a person is being oppressed no one should give a shit. For example:

White dude runs up and calls a black guy a ******. That's fucked up but he should be legally in his right to do it.

White dude denies a person a job because he is black. THAT is wrong.

Racist perception will always exist. Stereotyping has even been done between people of the same race for as long as human has walked the Earth. It's just how things are going to be. You may not like it but until there are thought crimes a la 1984, we're just going to have to deal with it.

 

[wraithian]

So, I'm a minority (half minority. Half Irish, half Mexican. Pseudo-nority? Hell, I don't know). My dad told me something when I was younger, talking about Mexican jokes (as these things go, my dad always told the best Mexican jokes, and his co worker, big black guy, told the best black jokes--life's funny like that). There was a big issue regarding hispanic stereotyping and racism years ago, and my dad said something to the effect of, "What would we do without the over-educated white collar white guys protecting the sensitivities of us blue collar Mexicans?" And, well, I still chuckle when I think about it. It's usually a group that is in no way affiliated with the supposed, "wounded," party making the biggest deal out of something that gets no more than an eye roll or a half amused chuckle from the group it's targeted at.

 

[Micalas]

It is not up to you.

This is very true. But it's up to us whether or not we give a fuck.

People really need to stop bitching. You may not like it but intent is very much a big part of life. Your example of murdering your kids with the intent of "saving them" is moot because civilized society has generally decided that intentionally killing someone is a no-no.

Unless a person is being oppressed no one should give a shit. For example:

White dude runs up and calls a black guy a ******. That's fucked up but he should be legally in his right to do it.

White dude denies a person a job because he is black. THAT is wrong.

Racist perception will always exist. Stereotyping has even been done between people of the same race for as long as human has walked the Earth. It's just how things are going to be. You may not like it but until there are thought crimes a la 1984, we're just going to have to deal with it.

'

What needs to stop is people bitching about how we can't make these things illegal when no one suggested here in the first place. Paranoia much? I mean God, really? Whine whine whine about people objecting and coming up with random shit about legality when that has nothing to do with it. Just because it's legal doesn't mean we should refrain from criticism.

I never said he was suggesting it be made illegal and I'm not being paranoid. I was just using the legal edge because that's all any of us have. The rest of the stuff we're debating is all opinion and god knows that sure as hell won't change in an internet argument.

When you have no legal authority to stop someone from doing something (right or wrong) your only options are to ***** and hope the course is changed or get a law passed. That's why I said anything about the legallity.

 

[kickyourass]

The necklace? No, looks like a geisha. The Buddha shirt? Don't think that's racist either, "Buddha" isn't a race and neither is Buddhism.

The two bottom shirts, however, yes they look pretty racist. The headgear being the biggest offender.

Hit the nail straight on the head there.

 

[Selway]

The Buddha shirt? Questionable but the image of a fat Buddha has been around for a while and most have gone with it.

To start this isn't so much directed at you specifically as much as clarifying in general because some people seem confused about this particular depiction.

As one or two others have said the laughing (fat) Buddha is not the same person who founded Buddhism. To be a Buddha just means to have achieved enlightenment, breaking the cycle of reincarnation, moving on to a higher existence and such. I suppose the term can be thought of a bit like someone being declared a saint in Christianity, but not exactly since they're seen as god like (though being a Buddha is not the same thing as being a god, there are also gods in some Buddhist traditions which I'm not even going to try to explain cause I'm hardily the person to try). There are several figures recognized as Buddhas within Buddhism, which differs from country to country.

The laughing Buddha is from China. The reason he's shown as fat is steeped in Chinese culture. Depictions of historical figures and such weren't always about being accurate for them as much as using certain cues like color of skin (some dudes are said to have had blue or red skin in myths), long ears, being heavy and so forth to tell you about the kind of person they are meant to be or ideas they represent. It's possible the monk the laughing Buddha was based on was actually fat, I dunno really off hand, but it's also short hand for prosperity in Chinese culture.

The western world thinks of the laughing Buddha as the Buddha because he pretty much took the place of the original Buddha as the foremost image of Buddhism in China and Japan, amongst other places. Whereas India, and again other areas, have for the most part retained the enlightened (skinny originator of Buddhism) Buddha as their preferred depiction. It's easy to see why people get confused about it here since it makes perfect sense to refer to either as Buddha, though the founder of Buddhism is often called the supreme Buddha I believe.

More on topic though, whether the shirts are racist or not. I dunno but I do think they're stupid.

 

[DarkRyter]

For all we know those characters could be white.

Not racist.

 

[Sinclair Solutions]

Considering I can't even tell what that necklace is supposed to be...I'd say no.

As for the shirts...well, not really. It's not completely off the hook, but it's not like they gave the men big buck teeth like back in WWII. I don't really see the appeal of these shirts in general. Are they supposed to be funny?

 

[Micalas]

No, no one has the 'legal edge' here because no one is talking about law. Except apparently you, who didn't get the memo that this isn't about the law. Dragging legality into a conversation that doesn't involve it doesn't add anything, it just makes a stupid distraction from the real issue.

And good grief, you're thick. No, when there is no legal authority we can decide whether something ought to be condemned, whether we ought to personally avoid it. It does not need to all boil down to pass a law against it or do nothing, that's a pathetically childish view of social interaction.

I know that. You're ignoring what I'm saying. I'm saying that I only brought it up because anything other than that is opinion and opinions rarely if ever change due to an internet argument. Opinion arguments are ultimately futile in this setting because of how fucking headstrong people are when they're anonymous. That's not an attack on you. That's just how web interaction has evolved.

I never said you society couldn't band together and make a taboo. In fact it happens all the time. Take BDSM for instance. Completely legal and yet kept in the dark corner with close friends. Though I suppose the same can be said with sexual topics in general in America. The fact of the matter is, all laws have come about by social conventions and general consensus. It is not childish to think that something right or wrong can be done unless there is a law addressing it. Don't paint me as some socially retarded miscreant because I understand how democracy works.

 

[dagens24]

Racist? No. Offensive? Sure. Do I care? Not in the least.

 

[DarkRyter]

For all we know those characters could be white.

Not racist.

That has got to be one of the worst excuses I've heard yet. "Those people dressed as stereotypical caricatures of Chinese people given a Chinese name could just be white!"

I try not to acknowledge the existence stereotypes and cultural associations concerning race because that would be racist.

 

[Micalas]

No, no one has the 'legal edge' here because no one is talking about law. Except apparently you, who didn't get the memo that this isn't about the law. Dragging legality into a conversation that doesn't involve it doesn't add anything, it just makes a stupid distraction from the real issue.

And good grief, you're thick. No, when there is no legal authority we can decide whether something ought to be condemned, whether we ought to personally avoid it. It does not need to all boil down to pass a law against it or do nothing, that's a pathetically childish view of social interaction.

I know that. You're ignoring what I'm saying. I'm saying that I only brought it up because anything other than that is opinion and opinions rarely if ever change due to an internet argument. Opinion arguments are ultimately futile in this setting because of how fucking headstrong people are when they're anonymous. That's not an attack on you. That's just how web interaction has evolved.

I never said you society couldn't band together and make a taboo. In fact it happens all the time. Take BDSM for instance. Completely legal and yet kept in the dark corner with close friends. Though I suppose the same can be said with sexual topics in general in America. The fact of the matter is, all laws have come about by social conventions and general consensus. It is not childish to think that something right or wrong can be done unless there is a law addressing it. Don't paint me as some socially retarded miscreant because I understand how democracy works.

Opinions are all this is. The law has absolutely nothing to say about this. I don't care if opinion isn't nice to deal with. That doesn't mean that law becomes relevant. It is not a good excuse that everything else is just opinion because the law doesn't help at all here since it simply isn't relevant to what is being discussed.

And it is childish to think that the law needs to get involved. It doesn't have to. Things can be dealt with without the law. It's simple.

You're the one that said something about 'socially retarded miscreant', not me. You're also the only one that thinks democracy has jack shit to do with this.

Ok, have a good day.

 

[Trivea]

Of course it's racist. Anything that pokes fun at any race besides white people is racist.

Seriously, though, I laughed at the laundry shirt, not gonna lie. I think people are just far too sensitive these days.

 

[Rin Little]

This again... I'll give the same answer I give to everything like this, should I then get pissed anytime someone makes a crack about America? People need to get over themselves...

 

[Dogstile]

Does it portray a negative image of said race? No? Not racist.

Stereotypes do not = racism. Also, yes, i'm white, I get it, I don't "know" anything about being picked on because of your skin colour. Oh wait, I grew up around a lot of black people and any time I got treated differently because I was white nobody would do anything because I was white. Seriously, anyone using the "you're a white teen, you don't know" argument shouldn't be arguing, its in the same vein as "i'm older than you, so i know better" and we all know that's also bullshit.

 

[Akimoto]

Nope.

Not even slightly.

People LOVE to be the victim, and will ***** and moan about anything. I'm not sure why though, makes them look a bit pathetic.

Agreed. The 'poor-me' card has been played by many, many groups looking for a moral high ground to bash the offending twats over the head.

 

[Tselis]

I suppose it depends on who was complaining, as to whether you can call it racist.

 

[agentorange98]

yeah the necklace is splitting hairs but the shirts are racist