Shanghaiist: Are your sneakers racist?

Peijin

Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:20:14 +0800

interesting thread. i will keep a copy of this somewhere, just in case one day i can afford similarly controversial $200 shoes and say goodbye to the bargain bin at (c)Ross Dress for Less.

Nick

Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:24:17 +0800

"it's taking negative stereotypical imagery and using them in a proud manner"

Nick Withycombe

Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:21:58 +0800

It seems like people are choosing to be offended by it. I absolutely refuse to believe that anyone is offended by it -- and if they feel that they are, it's because they have heard that it is racist. Like if I drew some random shape and people said "that shape means that he thinks Chinese people smell", and someone said "that thought offends me, thus I find that image offensive and racist." Illogical. The wooster article says a lot. People getting offended at it would be like a white person being offended when a black person calls another black person "nigger".

Dan

Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:10:42 +0800

Here's another take on it. http://www.woostercollective.com/2006/04/fight_for_ray_fong.html

ken

Mon, 17 Apr 2006 00:38:01 +0800

narrative voice (+again) makes some great points. i just want to add that when it comes to racial caricatures (or art in general) i think there's a difference between "racist-in-effect" and "racist-in-intent". with the latter, the artist had the intention to be racist (to degrade or make inferior a group of people based on their ethnicity or race) while the former, the artist never had that racist intention but a community (any community) interprets the finished work as racist. i think, in general, people are more forgiving when it comes to the former. when the artist is asian (or of the same ethnicity or race as the caricature), then i think people generally give him/her the benefit of the doubt that s/he had neutral intentions. while reading this post, it seems like so many of the readers know--definitively--that TWIST was racist. i don't think that's so clear. personally, i don't find the caricature racist at all, especially when you look at the original. http://www.flickr.com/photos/true2death/107833959/ now, maybe adidas is pulling a TIME magazine when it posted a darker--blacker--image of OJ's mug shot. racist? i'm not going to get into corporate intent.

surfer

Mon, 17 Apr 2006 00:08:19 +0800

Sounds like i will think twice before buying another adidas product. There are zillion other brands to choose from.

emily

Fri, 14 Apr 2006 06:59:06 +0800

remember also that it's not a mass-marketed item, it's a shoe intended for a selective audience, ie FANS, people who are familiar with McGee's work and thus would be willing to shell out $200 for a SHOE, as an collector's item.

narrative voice, again

Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:08:52 +0800

The reason I brought up Mcgee's ethnicity is because it is relevant in light of the comments being made here, and also because I'm sure many people are happy to have the information. The image in question doesn't exist in a void, and its origins (therefore the origins of its creator) are relevant to any discussion of its meaning. About the "Gook" example given by Kevin: a word or image that is understood to be racist, nonetheless carries a different meaning depending on context. The word "Gook" is certainly racist, but it would be unfair to say Kevin's (or my own) use of it is so, because we are clearly using it to mean something different. So it is for Mcgee's drawing- no doubt a goofy, unflattering caricature, but still a personal interpretation of a bigger picture, rather than a copied, gratuitous image. Calling Mcgee racist for his use of an image with racist connotations, is the same as calling Kevin or I racist, on the grounds that we've used an inherently racist word. The unwillingness to recognize that a piece of art has its own life and systems, is intellectual laziness, apathy- I fail to see how the artist's initiative to communicate complex ideas falls into this same category. The line here seems to be that if it's on a gallery wall, you'll think about it, but if it's on an Adidas shoe, it's not open to interpretation. The adidas marketing department would love to hear how deeply their brand management has rooted the unflinching significance of their product in the popular psyche. jp posted that images become detached from their meaning when they get used for commercial purposes. I disagree, but grant that there's a tendency to numb oneself to the continuous onslaught of advertising. Congratulations to Barry Mcgee, for sparking conversation and thought with a running shoe.

jp

Thu, 13 Apr 2006 04:11:06 +0800

um, i think the issue is that in the context of barry mcgeee/ray fong's work has a context and reference,(im actually a fan of his work) the decision to sell it to brand adidas (how companies buy out artists for street cred) divorces that tether of meaning - how else to explain this? Adidas' intent in presenting this image is not to perpetuate a stereotype, but to create a shoe that people who are "in the know" will instantly ID as Barry MC Gees and therefore the inthe know will give more cred to adidas because they are referencing art thats in "their" world. its totally ignorant and arrogant, and really makes me angry at Barry as a fan of his work - why put an image out there in the world untethered and so obviously just to market to a specific art geek world? And theres so much other imagry of his that could have been used - its just a failure to understand that once an image becomes apart of the brand it will always become untethered from its meaning, and contribute to the most shallow meaning the image can take (in the rest of the world unfamiliar with his work, racism.) does that make any sense? in a nutshell, gross.

Kevin

Thu, 13 Apr 2006 03:06:50 +0800

Actually, Barry McGee is half-Asian and half-white. Out of common decency, try not to use his ethnicity as ammunition to trivialize the anger of Asian Americans in regards to this topic. Just because he’s half Asian doesn’t mean that he isn’t ignorant or apathetic about racism directed towards Asian Americans in the United States and the world in general. Regardless of the fact that McGee was using this stereotypical caricature to satire himself, the issue at hand is that he chose to use an image that has historically been used to dehumanize Asians and Asian Americans in a condescending way. Your apathetic attitude is proof of that. After all, as long as you feel the issue was misconstrued, you can justify anything. Your logic reminds me of John McCain and his usage of the word “gook.” McCain managed to use the word only to describe the individuals who tortured him and not ordinary Vietnamese. However, this was met with predictable outrage. This usage of the slur had a deeper context to it but it doesn’t make it correct for him to utter a slur that has been used to subjugate Asians and, specifically, the Vietnamese. Do us all a favor and stop jumping on the phrase “stop being so PC.” It’s tired and it’s a new fad for people to employ in order to protect themselves from criticism. As far as I’m concerned, that phrase is synonymous with “I don’t care about your concerns and perspective.”

narrative voice

Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:59:02 +0800

If I come off holier-than-thou, so be it: why don't you wingers do a little research before getiing all bent out of shape, or casting your opinions around, it would do us all a favour. For starters, as unreported by any press, anywhere, BARRY MCGEE IS ASIAN Secondly, "The Fong", the name of the contentious adidas model, is a clear allusion to Ray Fong aka Twist aka Barry Mcgee. Barry is a world-famous artist who originally gained recognition as graffiti-writer "Twist". When it came time to put his work on the gallery wall, the illegal nature of his past art-crimes, coupled with the anti-establishment ethos of graffiti, plus Barry's sense of humour, made him decide to adopt the pseudonym Ray Fong. Ray Fong is funny because it is the summation of a legitimate graff artist posing as a stereotypical (and therefore non-threatening) asian-american dork. So with the Adidas "Fong" model, Mcgee is once again making reference to himself selling-out, or posing as a legitimate graphic artist, however you choose to see it. The caricature is of Barry himself, so all you haters can just fuck right off. The sheer number of philistines drawn out of the woodwork is ample evidence of this piece's artistic merit. One last thing. All the nay-sayers can be forgiven for not knowing the history behind the drawing. But to get so worked over a piece of art without trying to figure out what the hell it might be about is just dumb. I can't imagine anyone standing in front of a painting in a gallery, foaming at the mouth over some perceived non-pcness.

马耷

Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:05:45 +0800

As an Asian American, I am not offended by the sneakers. But I understand people who are, and I respect their sensibility in this matter. The caricature, apart from its racial undertones (if any), is not so adorable an icon for any kind of consumer goods anyway. Lacks wit, and also lacks association to reality that makes a stereotypical portrayal tickle---or offend. For instance, how many buck-toothed Asians have you met? Don't look at ME, bro...... The joke here is that I bet some Adidas suit up there was actually hoping to PLEASE Asian consumers with this caricature; the moron was thinking that Asians will fall for it and may even be flattered, just because he himself found it cute (for he grew up on some rabbit farm in western Australia and popped his cherry with a nubile hare......). This goofy genius must have got the shock of his life, when the tsunami of protest wipes out his trivial existence! Good for him. This farce just goes to show how out-of-touch some "global" companies are. On the other hand, I am not sure what good an organized boycott will do. The parallel to the African-American experience may not make as much sense as it first appears, because of the many, many socio-economic factors that are so, so different for us Asians. In the same spirit as we'd rather not call any trans-ethnice aggression a Holocaust, so as not to trivialize that ultimate horror of "what Man does to Man". Just shrug it off and not buy the stupid shoes. Not to buy them needs not a grandiose stand of any kind, besides the one simple reason: they ain't cute.

Yi

Wed, 12 Apr 2006 12:31:12 +0800

African Americans have shown us how to earn respect. Chinese, or all Asians, should boycott Adidas all over the world, period.

Steph

Wed, 12 Apr 2006 08:35:31 +0800

Most of the pple who do exhibit residual racism are on the lower end of the educational spectrum. Racism against asians is really more along the lines of ignorance than hatemongering. And so the smarter, more educated the pple, the less the racist tendencies. I rarely encounter this stuff, but when I do, I'm not really bothered by it, b/c the instigators are generally stupid anyways, and aren't really worth the effort.

Fai

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:36:01 +0800

most non-asians definitely don't care or realize that this type of stuff is very offensive... i'm also asian american and i've always seen this type of stuff and it still bothers me... i still quite often hear terms like chinaman or oriental and i do my best to educate them that those words are the equivalent to calling a black person the "n" word.

yu888

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:09:01 +0800

The image is very stereotypical and while the manufacturer and designers meant no harm, it is infact offensive to many or Asian heritage. But without the historic background of why it was offensive, many Asians in their homecountries may not even recognize this as a caricature or Asians. Do I find it offensive? I find it mildly so, though more annoyance really, that such ignorance continues to permeat even western society...don't get me started on the ignorance here in China. I would not buy something that carried such a logo ( no Dalie Toothpaste for me either, thanks) and would in fact educate people around me not to. As an Asian American, who also grew up with it, I do feel that sometimes our own tolerence of such idiocy contributed to the propogation of the insensitivity we experienced.

noel

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:30:20 +0800

is the image perpetuating a stereotype? yes, of course. do people recognize that some asians might be offended? i doubt it. why? discrination towards asians is usually quite subtle. a racist caricature here, a kung-fu move/grunt there, etc. as an american, i honestly think it's almost engrained in our psyche. it is absoutely dangerous to do the same to african-americans. can you imagine a racist caricature of a black man on the bottom of a shoe? do you know what kind of uproar that would cause? as an asian-american, i am not terribly offended. probably because i've become desensitized to it. i saw, heard, and felt it quite frequently growing up. so it doesn't really surprise me.