College students across the nation have been protesting the sale of certain Abercrombie & Fitch shirts this past week. These shirts, like many others sold by the popular clothing company, poke fun at ethnic groups, except this time, Asian Americans are crying "overt racism," quotes the Los Angeles Times.
Some of the slogans printed on the shirts include: "Wong Brothers Laundry -- Two Wongs Can Make It White," "Abercrombie & Fitch Buddha Bash -- Get Your Buddha on the Floor," "Tiki Golf: Mini Golf and Pub -- A hole-in-one slants the fun" and "Wok-N-Bowl: Chinese Food and Bowling." Protesters contend that these slogans are derogatory and "trivialize Asian American experiences" (The Los Angeles Times) in this country by depicting "really negative, harmful and hurtful images of Asian Americans doing work they have been historically forced to do" in an attempt at humor (The Washington Post).
True, these shirts are distasteful, and A&F made a mistake in assuming that "Asians would love the shirts," but they are not as offensively denigrating or as harmful as protesters have made them out to be. At what point do we become overly sensitive? A&F did not market these shirts as a form of discrimination against Asian people. Asian Americans should not view the sale of these shirts as an attack against the Asian community. It is understandable for the clothing company to assume that these shirts could sell because the nature of our country is to make fun of everyone. Take, for instance, late night TV hosts Jay Leno or David Letterman, or Saturday Night Live, or the popular "The Onion." The target audiences of these media are the same as that of A&F -- the college student or young adult. We accept these forms of satire and parody, yet we overreact to the printing of some slogans on T-shirts? Every time Saturday Night Live plays on stereotypes, no one gets riled enough to protest it because it is understand as parody, satire, humor. Political cartoons also depict caricatures of ethnicities. Are we to censor all of this?
Our opponents further contend that these slogans are "not funny, but harmful," and that their reaction to this incident is the "first step for an underrepresented minority to speak out and finally become an active voice" in the political process. This rationale has justified a national movement via a web page to distribute flyers and get petitions signed to boycott A&F, as well as meetings on the Dartmouth campus, including one "EMERGENCY" (original emphasis) meeting to discuss this "bias incident." With this sort of reaction, one would expect that the students are protesting the removal of something as vital to our society as the freedom of speech.
But this is not the case! What is fundamentally going on is that groups across the nation are overreacting to poor judgment in marketing. The effects of these slogans are not deeply denigrating. Opponents argue that these slogans perpetuate stereotypes about Asian Americans and place invisible barriers against Asian Americans in society. All minority groups must be careful in what they view as another group's attempt to suppress them. As long as minority group members act as if they do not belong in society, they never will. They place a stigma upon themselves as the minority, as the outcasts and whatever invisible barriers exist arise out of their own self-segregation. People must be careful about what they consider racist so as not to blow things out of proportion.
Although these slogans do refer to stereotypes that developed out of demeaning jobs that Asian Americans were "historically forced to do," these shirts hardly constitute a discriminatory corporate practice by A&F. As I mentioned before, the shirts are only examples of poor judgement. We must also consider this: why would A&F sell an offensive product if they knew they would have to pull it just days after its release? It is precisely because they (reasonably) did not expect Asians to react so violently. They assumed that Asian Americans would not be overly sensitive and would take the shirts as another form of satire.
Let us posit another point: stereotypes are not completely ungrounded, and to absolutely deny the existence of individuals who happen to fit into them is to harbor a form of racism as well. Is A&F truly racist for depicting recognizable cultural caricatures? No. Just because they have decided to print such caricatures on their shirts does not mean that the company seeks to reduce the social status of Asians. Are not the individuals who cannot distinguish between bigotry and satire the ones who are racist because they read racist overtones into these caricatures?
And what makes it acceptable for Asian Americans to satirize themselves, but not for others to satirize them? What these groups fail to do is realize that first and foremost, everyone is American. When aspects of their ethnicity are made fun of, it does not make them second-class citizens. If we demand respect from others, we must give it. We must respect the integrity of satirists, respect their freedom to satirize whomever they will, understanding that they know full well the possible effects of their statements. We must also respect the integrity of the public, trust that they understand the difference between humor and bigotry.
Most importantly, we must be able to distinguish between humor and bigotry, and not to confuse one with the other. When we do that, we will become overly sensitive and appear petty when we complain about such trivial things as screen-printed slogans on T-shirts. It is this over-sensitivity that "The Onion" spotlighted in a recently published headline, "Chinese Laundry Owner Blasted for Reinforcing Negative Ethnic Stereotypes."
