Is this 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

 

[Batou667]

Racist? More like pathetic. It's hyper-sensitive tripe like this that undermines legitimate racial issues.

The T-shirts? Fat ol' Buddha can hardly be called a stereotype, he's an icon. The "racist" puns? Have you never seen a Chinese restaurant (owned, managed and staffed by actual Asian people, generally) that uses similar wordplay? I used to live down the road from a restaurant called Wok Dis Way, which I thought was very witty.

And the "Oriental girl" necklace - oriental isn't an "outdated" term, it's eminently useful as calling Chinese, Japanese, Korean etc people "asian" is simply too vague and saying "people of south-east Asian decent" is an unweildy mouthful. The actual Geisha-type girl isn't racially stereotyped in any way - she doesn't so much as have squinty eyes.

Who goes out of their way to find offence in harmless bits of cultural homage such as these? My guess is that they were (depressingly) middle-class and white. I expect actual oriental people have much better things to do with their time - like, you know, overtaking the West as an economic power.

 

[One of Many]

The bottom ones with the stereotypical Asian occupations and headgear sure are, also Buddha wasn't fat, he starved himself while searching for enlightenment, but the image of him being fat will probably never change

The fat Buddha is Budai, who is considered a Buddha or a Bodhisattva, depending on what traditions you read and is often connected to the Maitreya.

 

[FaceFaceFace]

The necklace is fine. "Wong Brothers Laundry Service"? Yes, that is indeed stereotypical and racist. Surprising, since most things in threads with this title are nothing to be concerned with.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

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.

Ah quite interesting whilst i did know of the various depictions of the Buddha i wasn't aware of the reasons behind them. Now i've learned something, which always excites me when information i never knew is shown to me, so thank you, and for that you get this.