Ignacio,

The characature is demeaning. Don't try to classify it as a question of politically correct or incorrect, because that doesn't fly.

ElGato

I find political correctness a pretty slippery slope. We try to be sensitive to stereotyping, but still use Juan Valdez and his burro for coffee and Aunt Jemima is still around (has the face been updated? I don't recall!). The cute little Taco Bell dog that was SO popular became a problem when some Hispanics thought it demeaning to have their culture represented by a dog. Since we tend to view the world through our own eyes and colored by our own culture and sensitivity, it is difficult to predict when something we think is pretty safe will wind up offending someone.

Thank you Maestra,

That was exactly what my 'ignorance' was meaning to point.

Having to be PC diminishes individual liberty, which was one of the matters Americans are said to be more fond of.

It is a matter of grade:

i.e. I understand that a sexist or racist way of speaking could be PC, and I agree it is not right, but imagine somebody said that calling the Chicago hockey team should not be called "Indians" (I think that's the name) for it is an insult towards them because it is (in his/her oppinion) a brutal game.

Sorry, I am sure there is a lot of more examples, but I can't recall, after all I don't know so many american commercial makes' names.

The main chain of department stores in Spain is "El Corte Ingés". Don't you think somebody (maybe from Saville Row) could feel offended ... And so on

bye

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Ignacio ]

Yes, Ignacio, we work very hard here in the USA to invent new words by which to be offended. One day the American language will be limited to selected verbs and nouns certified as innocuous and inoffensive. Adjectives will have disappeared--and everyone will be happy and relaxed.
Cantabene

There's an obvious difference between the characature of Juan Valdez and the candy boy. If you can't see it, you're not trying, or don't want to.

As for the Chicago Blackhawks hockey team, I'm not going to stand in judgement, since I am part Indian myself. The same applies to the Cleveland Indians and the Atlanta Braves. I don't find them offensive but some people may.

To even suggest that the candy boy is not a stereotype that is unacceptable is absurd, and an insult to many members of this board who are of African descent.

ElGato

ElGato, I agree that stereotypes are inappropriate, unnecessary, thoughtless and offensive. I am not so sure,however, that Juan Valdez is less offensive to Colombians than the conguito thing is...my point is that since no Colombian has complained (and folks like you don't think it is offensive), we think nothing of it. OUR not thinking it is offensive does not make it less so. (I personally find being lumped into the all encompassing term "white" people offensive since I am not really albino and since the group of people called "white" come from a wide range of cultures that generally have nothing more in common than the "whiteness" of the people! I don't much appreciate having folks shove their fingers in my face, telling me what "we" white people did when MY white people were still being oppressed in Europe!!!)) I don't understand how brands like Uncle Ben's, for example, remain in our culture! The figures "Uncle" Ben and "Aunt" Jemima were slaves (or "servants") on plantations, for Pete's sake! I don't care if Aunt Jemima is no longer wearing that funky scarf on her head...you can't tell me that a sweet Southern lady was in the kitchen making those pancakes!

The Indian naming of sports teams is another tricky area. The use of Buccaneers and Oilers might also be offensive. Right now animal names seem safe...but perhaps someone will be upset that we are perpetuating stereotype of the ferocity of animals by portraying them in the aggressive way we tend to for sports teams. We have a problem reintroducing wolves into the West...if we had a tribe called the Wolves with fierce looks on their faces, would that exacerbate the problem?

Ignacio is responding, I think, from the perspective of a people who have only REALLY had freedom for some 25 years. I don't know that Franco Spain enjoyed anything like what we call freedom. They are enjoying that freedom and don't see that part of the dilemma of freedom is how to allow you to say and do whatever you like while protecting my right not to be bothered by it. That is part of why the smoking issue is hot. Sure, you have the right to smoke, but I also have the right NOT to...and if you could smoke in a bubble so that I wouldn't have to be impacted by it, that would be fine. Similarly, you have the right to think in offensive, blockheaded stereotypical ways, but I have the right not to have to butt up against them. I wonder, sometimes, where this will end. I currently have students afraid to use the word for "black" in Spanish because they are worried that it may offend someone! For weeks they look around the room uncomfortably when they have to say "el sombrero es negro". I think that degree of sensitivity shows we may be going too far. Similarly, one of our soccer coaches got into a whole bunch of trouble when someone not involved in soccer overheard the girls shouting things like "Get those blacks!" "Stop those whites!" The teams, you see, were just using their sock colors and not names...and the teams were multi-ethnic/racial. Nevertheless, the parent was sure that a race riot was about to start and called THE POLICE!!!!!

One of the things we try to explain to students when they travel is that our way is not the only way, nor (necessarily!) the right way. As a people, we Americans have really gone from one extreme to another in terms of our sensitivity towards people of other ethnicities/religions/races/sexual orientation, etc. and we are still a work in progress. Ignacio thinks we may be going off the deep end (and in some cases, I have to agree with him). It is his right to think so, isn't it?

La Maestra,

I couldn't agree more. But at the same time, the characature is what specifically makes the difference. The Juan Valdez characature is of an average looking person whereas the one for the candy doesn't resemble any human being but a stereotyped cartoon. If you can't see that, you're not looking.

As for the aunt and ben references, even dressing up the images doesn't help me when it comes to tolerating them. I avoid those products like plague because I remember the history behind them.

I believe it's the flag of Mississippi that still carries the confederate flag on it? Are people being too sensitive when they say it should be removed? I think not.

What irks me most is the people who constantly make excuses for racist statements, pictures, or actions, by trying to pass them off as being a question as to whether or not they are politically correct. That's akin to saying that the Ku Klux Klan is a damned civic group, and may only be somewhat politically incorrect.

I don't have a good answer for the question on the word negro. But then again, I never thought there was a problem with it. I don't see people getting bent out of shape when I use the term colored pencils. Maybe we're causing our own grief by becoming hyper-sensitive when we are outside the issue. I don't know.

ElGato

I agree: the US is a crazy, repressed, backward country in many ways. A Spanish friend told me he went to a smoke-free bar in the US. He wanted a cigarette, so he and a friend went outside to smoke. Well, they couldn't bring their drinks outside, so it was smoke or drink for them, but not both. There is much, much more personal freedom in Spain compared to the US.

I agree with la maestra that PC is a slippery slope. It is a worry about form and not content. It is listening to individual words rather than a complete thought. Anything can be offensive to anyone. Often the solution is to avoid certain discussions altogether lest someone somewhere be offended.

Yes, ElGato, I see the difference between a cartoon caricature and a picture of a person and yes, I understand that using a caricature allows one to emphasize features or qualities that the artist particularly wants to make a point of. Yes, Juan Valdez looks like a real person...any real coffee picker wearing a serape and loading his beans into sack on his burro's back. Does this represent what all coffee pickers look like? I honestly don't know. (At this point, I feel like we're beating a dead horse!)I don't think the Swiss Miss girl particularly represents what the Swiss look like, and she looks like a real person too. What about Dutch Boy Paints? I don't see a lot of people like that in Amsterdam! Offensive, perhaps not...but most definitely a stereotype. Most of the old cartoons...Disney included...used some really god-awful caricatures. I don't know that the ones we see these days are much better! As for colored pencils... it may just be a matter of time!

I appreciate Caminante's comments. It appears to be, as s/he says, that people are listening for trigger words. Some folks have gotten so litigation-happy that they seem to lie in wait for someone to accidentally stumble upon something they can take offense with.

I'm reading the thread and I have to say that I'm quite a bit annoyed. I can't believe a "conguito" could offend anyone...

What's wrong with it? It is just a candy... If people knew it was made with unrespect for black people or with a racist purpose they would put a court to the company which made them :-)

Anyway, now that you say it: When I was in the States I feeled free for most of the time. It's true that when I got more involved with the family with which I stayed, I feeled that some topics were not welcomed (you may not talk about politics, religion, racism towards blacks, etc). Since I were very curious (of course if I were there I wanted to learn as much as I could of their culture), I found myself in some embarrasing situations :-)

I think that the less not-written rules you have, the more free you would be. It is not the words that offend, it is the intention with which you speak them.