Maybe the outcry against the "Dartmouth Indian" shirt hasn't quite gotten the point across. For years, Native American students and their allies have protested the Indian mascot as a symbol of white America's historic oppression of Native Americans, only to be met with cries of "free speech!" from the white males who regularly wear the shirts (have you ever seen a non-white male wearing one?).
Now, the same phenomenon has occurred on a national scale. Last week, the Asian-American community learned that Abercrombie & Fitch, the popular Midwest-based clothing company, was selling a series of T-shirts with somewhat questionable graphics and captions. Complete with bamboo lettering, multiple "wok" puns and a Buddha caricature, the shirts included catchy phrases like "Pizza Dojo," "You love long time," "Eat In or Wok Out" and "Buddha Bash: Get Your Buddha on the Floor." Asian-American advocacy groups and college students across the nation responded with protests and boycotts, flooding the A&F office with phone calls and emails. On Monday, about 30 students attended a Pan Asian Council meeting to discuss the incident and decide what should be done here at Dartmouth.
Why don't those irate minorities just lighten up? What is wrong with a little satirical humor? A&F spokesperson Hampton Carney says that the shirts were meant to be "cheeky and irreverent," and that he "even polled the Asians around the office today of what they thought of the shirts, and they thought the shirts were hilarious."
There are a lot of things that are wrong with this particular failed attempt at "hip" humor. It perpetuates stereotypes. It denigrates the history of Asian Americans. Worst of all, it promotes whiteness as the desirable racial norm and Asians as inferior slapstick caricatures, the "perpetual foreigner" in this "land of the free."
Let us concentrate on just one of the many offensive shirts that A&F was offering in their online catalog until a few days ago. The "Wong Brothers Laundry Service" shirt, classified by many as perhaps the most offensive of all, features two slant-eyed, grinning men wearing coolie hats, all set against a backdrop of soap bubbles, a clothes hanger and a Chinese character meaning "to carry."
This shirt not only perpetuates the stereotype of the chinky-eyed, sleazy Chinese man who is the "perpetual foreigner," but also makes it " hip" and profitable (the retail value of the shirts was $25, though they were being sold on eBay for as much as $200 after A&F pulled the shirts). Equally offensive are the visual images that recall the 1930s and 1940s when white actors portrayed Chinese men by taping their eyelids and faking a Chinese accent. How degrading that was. How degrading and sickening it is to still have to deal with this 70 years later.
Didn't happen in the '90s, you say? In 1991, Jonathan Pryce went "yellowface" in Miss Saigon, and that wasn't even in the Midwest. We've gotten smarter since then, you say? Just the other day, as two friends were walking past some open windows, a white male student yelled at them, "What the f--- are you looking at, you f---ing gooks? Ching, ching, chong."
Moreover, these t-shirts belittle Asian American history as well. When Chinese immigrants came to the United States in the late 1800s, they were forced into the laundry trade because it was the only work they could get, not because it was fun and easy work. The hours were long, the labor overwhelming and the racism almost unbearable. The idea of "Yellow Peril" that characterized early Asian immigration manifested itself in a series of anti-Chinese labor and immigration laws, which included the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. There's a connection here.
"Two Wongs Make it White" -- what does this phrase imply? It not only makes light of the Chinese immigrant launderers of the late 19th and early 20th century, but also promotes whiteness as the desirable norm. As Sandra Fu writes, "white connotes cleanliness," and we cannot avoid the implication of "white" as "right" when used in this manner.
To those who think that Asian Americans should just relax and get a sense of humor, Emil Guillermo points out that there is a difference between "self-deprecation and denigration" (San Francisco Gate) People are allowed to make fun of themselves, even stereotypically. This is how marginalized groups reclaim and redefine words that were once used against them. However, when one ethnic group makes fun of another, there is a shift from self-deprecation to denigration. Meaning lies not only in the word itself, but how and by whom it is used.
The production of these T-shirts is not a race crime, but Asian Americans not being overly-sensitive by reacting so strongly to them. When the ruling majority produces degrading images of minority groups, they reinforce the unequal power structure in our society. They claim our history, our present, our future, as fair ground to use for laughs and to make a quick buck.
Neither is this a free speech issue. It is more real and immediate than the question of whether or not A&F's actions are constitutional. It is a question of what our society values. Do we value mutual respect and taking responsibility for your actions, or denigration and self-interest?
A&F has thrown out the challenge. The Asian-American community, with some exceptions, has quickly and soundly responded that they are for mutual respect and personal responsibility. Emails about the T-shirts flooded the inboxes of Asian American students all over the country, and they responded by organizing phone-ins, protests and boycotts.
The shirts were pulled from shelves and the online store catalog shortly after the protests began, but A&F shows no real acknowledgment that it is wrong or that it will make a meaningful change. So now the question is, as consumers, what is your response to A&F's challenge? Will you demand that they take responsibility for their actions by boycotting their products, or support their "white is right" attitude? What are you doing today to respond and what will you do in the future when this sort of incident happens again?
