History, racism, and advertising. A debate. [renamed]
by Nate Voss, (17 comments)
Is “Jap” racist? That’s a hard line to cross. Certainly with the modern world’s proliferation of political correctness, the term “Japanese” is much less derogatory to the ears. The propaganda (or Design, as we should be allowed to call it) in all countries during the second World War was, by today’s standards, highly racist. But by the standards of the time, it was highly patriotic. The Japanese destroyed a major American military installation, killing 1,177 crewmen. They were not being attacked in Design because of their race. They were being attacked in Design (and in the world) because of their actions.
When I was younger I thought that “Jew” was just as derogatory as “Jap,” especially considering the relevance of both shorthand cultural titles during World War II. As I grew up and grew into the world, I found that wasn’t that case. Jew is what you call Jews. I’ve never spoken with a Japanese person about that name. Maybe the Japanese can call each other “Jap,” but it would be rude for someone else to do so. Either way, I am re-posting this example of WWII American anti-Japanese sentiment (remember, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are highly-comparable American tragedies) to allow comments. Take that, Hitler.
Comments (17)
nate said:
My original Comment, which was denied and spurred this post, was on the true failure of this advertisement: No child or parent would ever buy a box of Wheaties if they thought that Japanese boobie-trapped it. That’s a terrible ad. But the rest of the copy is hilarious.
Posted on May 9, 2005
Bennett said:
Aren’t you just the hero of free speech Mr. Voss. I stand behind Adrian’s choice to not allow comments on his post. I guess I also stand by your right to create your own post about it. Adrian and I are the ones that have made strong statements about keeping politics out of this blog and so we are the ones that have to be careful to not cross that line. This post seemed like a good one to just share and not discuss. Just don’t make it seem that not allowing comments is a rare thing on blogs and the equivalent of censorship. It is fairly common and the authors prerogative.
By the way. Congrats on making your first post.
Posted on May 9, 2005
nate said:
Is the wartime propaganda of a 65-year-old war politics?
It’s history. I can’t tell you exactly when it happens; when today’s politics become tomorrow’s history, but for damn sure it’s happened for WWII. What I would most like to know is: What would the sentiment be if the line read “Those terrorists are getting smarterﾖ” and all else remained equal?
Sometimes I wonder why we don’t see more of this kind of advertising now. During WWII, nobody gave an F if you offended the Japanese. They attacked without provocation. They killed American soldiers. They were the enemy. Ask the mother of a soldier killed at Pearl Harbor or anywhere on the Pacific Front if she really gives a damn if a cereal ad offended the Japanese.
The only difference between foe and friend, ally and enemy, is time. 65 years ago every red-blooded American hated the Japanese. Today we do not. In another 65 years we may well be the strongest of allies with every single nation we are currently at war with. Take a look at England, for example. Mighty wars we fought with them. Or, more recently, the good ol’ USSR. Russia, I should say. During the Cuban missile crisis they and we nearly destroyed the world. Now we’re fast friends. That’s less than 20 years ago.
This ad is a [small] piece of history. Debate it as you will.
Posted on May 9, 2005
Chris Bowden said:
For another interesting ‘critique’ of this advert:
http://www.seanbaby.com/stupid/comicads05.shtml
Posted on May 9, 2005
Adrian said:
Nate, If you want the truth, it took plenty of self control not to inject my political thoughts into my post. I don’t think there is much to talk about here aside from a heated political debate. Prove me wrong.
Posted on May 9, 2005
Donovan Beery said:
It is ads like this that will make words that were once fine to use into words that are offensive. It’s because using those words bring back memories of ads like this.
We don’t see advertising like this anymore because of how ads like this affected the Japanese Americans that had nothing to do with the war, but were sent to ‘camps’ across America anyway.
I wonder if all the people who pose for the Wheaties boxes know of these Wheatie traditions?
Posted on May 9, 2005
Krapster said:
Duh. If “Jap” is derogatory, then what about “Brit”? “Yank”? “Euro”? Get over it.
Posted on May 11, 2005
reality check said:
The term Jap is derogatory it was fully intended to be. The Japanese cowardly attacked the United States of America and all it stands for. They attacked AMERICA, not just some political party. It doesn’t matter what politic beliefs one has there is the overriding factor that they attacked America itself, not just a certain group. The terrorists did it too on September 11 which was also a cowardly attack. They didn’t stop when they hijacked the planes and asked certain members what political party they represented and asked them to leave. This was an attack on AMERICA not any one political party that fact seems to slip through some minds like smoke.
Free speech is a right all Americans have. It is the difference between the freedom we enjoy over that of dictators. Now there are some things I don’t believe in what others say but I do not believe I have the right to censor their beliefs or words. Or as some believe that they can threaten others that do not believe as they do, or censor them as has happened over the last few years. Free speech does not give the right to threaten or intimidate others. That is what all terrorist and dictators want. What Hitler wanted. To rule the world, no freedom and no choice. All Germans could vote freely when Hitler was running the country. Of course the only person they could vote for was Hitler.
Design and politics are intertwined just as everything else. I recommend that those who do not believe that should get books on the Bauhaus. That school was shut down due to politics. There are politics in business and schools, every facet of society has political involvement in some form or another. And while they may want to censor political discussion for whatever reason I believe it is wrong to tell others that they too must not talk about it. Saying to others that they can only do or say what a certain person or groups of people believe is against everything America stands for. It is what terrorists and dictators want.
World War II was fought against a mad dictator [who was elected freely by the people before he took over as dictator] and Japan and Italy. It was a time that saw America and the world tested. And freedom won. The basic rights of all citizens needs to be fully enforced regardless of my or anyone elses beliefs. Not ignored when it suits someones purpose.
Adrian and Bennett have the right to censor their site sad as this fact is as they pay for it. But I didn’t agree months before when there were posts on Design Observer telling them they shouldn’t talk about politics. As the ones running that site have freedom to talk about what they want as they too pay for it.
Freedom is a wonderful thing but remember it cost us in blood as a country to get here.
Posted on May 12, 2005
Bennett said:
“Reality Check,” Cowardice can also be found in anonymity.
What you said wasn’t so offensive that you had to hide your identity. Statements always have more validity when the author is willing to not be anonymous.
Here is a real reality check. Not allowing comments on one post is not censorship. Your example of a great bastion of free speech, Design Observer, does it all the time. Although we occasionally delete a comment (usually due to one of Nate’s jokes) we do our best to only delete the extremely offensive. We don’t delete comments with political view points either, we just choose not to voice our own.
Talking about history and the implied racism (or lack there of) is not what Adrian and were trying to avoid with this post. Comparing it to the politics of today and turning this into one big political debate is what we didn’t want. There are thousands of other sites out there to share political views, and that is a good thing. We just choose to not confuse politics and design, even though we know that they do on a personal level.
As far as the word “Jap” being offensive, I don’t think we have any say in that. Only the Japanese can say if they mind being called that.
Posted on May 12, 2005
Adrian said:
Reality Check (whoever you are), You and Nate are completely wrong about your censorship angle. I am not censoring you. Nate’s post proves that this ad wouldn’t turn into a valuable discussion about design. It only stirs up political rants. There isn’t anything wrong with that, but it isn’t the direction I want this GRAPHIC DESIGN BLOG to go. If you look back at my objections to Design Observer, you will note that I wasn’t objecting to politics. I was objecting to using a discussion about design to promote a political point of view. That is absolutely wrong. Our goal on this site is to be transparent in our intentions. There is no hidden censorship agenda on Be A Design Group. When a discussion about design intersects with politics, that is fair game and we will talk about it. However, you can rest assured that we won’t use our site as a platform to insult political figures or to push an ideological agenda like Design Observer has been known to do. Maybe that is a distinction that is hard for some people to recognize, but I think it is important. You and Nate may think you are talking about design, but you aren’t, despite your good intentions. Your political opinions, right or wrong, don’t belong on this site. That is why I closed the comments on my post. Call it censorship if you want, or find a political blog and post your opinions there.
Even if the Term “Jap” weren’t offensive, saying they are “getting smarter” by using Wheaties as a booby trap is a pretty insulting.
Posted on May 12, 2005
nate said:
Well this is spiraling out of control in under 10 posts. +1 to Adrian.
You see, I thought we could get into this from a historic design/advertising angle and attack this topic from the point of view of what the climate was at the time of its inception. Adrian originally limited posts not due to censorship�never for the purpose of censorship�but because he didn’t believe we could keep this from dropping down into a political torrent of free speech jargon. Guess who won that debate?
This is not an issue of free speech. Obviously, if this ad was published�which it was�there was no limitation of rights on Wheaties for saying Japs or pissing anyone off. It’s also not an issue of free speech on this site: anyone who drops that theory on BA is stupid.
Once again: Historical Social Climate & Design. To me that’s an interesting topic and I felt it merited discussion. Maybe to others it is not; and flag-waving justification of intolerance is a better argument. And I certainly didn’t intend people to infer that I was calling Adrian “Hitler.” Shoooooot. That’s way beyond appropriate.
Posted on May 16, 2005
Adrian said:
Nate, Glad to know you weren’t calling me Hitler. Wait, did you say “beyond appropriate?” Hmmm…
Posted on May 16, 2005
Tim C said:
I think that whether the word ‘Jap’ is to be treated as racist or not depepnds entirely on the context, and the intentions of those using the word. A british-born chinese friend of mine refers to herself as a ‘chink’ and to japanese people as ‘japs’. No insult or racsim is intened in either case. In a similar way to another famous term of racial abuse, derogatory terms can be turned into symbols off empowerment by being appropprited by the persecuted group. This also applies to the term ‘queer’. Thus, within the context of the comic, the term ‘jap’ is probably racist, but given the cultural context of the ad, this was nothing unusual. The term ‘jap’ however, is not intrinsically racist.
c.f. The Big Lebowski and South Park for more examples! :)
Posted on May 20, 2005
samsang said:
I am Japanese. It’s derogatory. Period.
Posted on May 30, 2005
nate said:
And thus ends the debate. Thanks to Samsang. I have renamed this post in order to stop offending anyone, though I do personally believe Tim C’s comments on the context of the use of the word has plenty of merit. In the usage in question, there should be no doubt to its dubious nature.
Posted on May 31, 2005
Naeem Tyab said:
Its a heated political debate.
Naeem Tyab
Posted on June 3, 2005
sosa said:
You mean that I’m allowed to be racists with all you stupid yankee gringos just because of your coward war on Irak, for killing al those people in Hiroshima and stealing California, Texas, Colorado and all that spanish sounding states from Mexico?
Man! that’s freaking good.
Posted on June 3, 2005