A Choice of Fabric or a Choice of Words?
by Guest Contributor Wendi Muse, originally published at the Coup Magazine Blog
I woke up a bit late on Friday morning, yet despite my tardiness, I decided to humor myself with the usual banter of morning television. While simultaneously slipping on shoes and attempting to do something with my hair without the help of a mirror, I used my free hand to change the channel to NBC for the Today Show with Matt Lauer and Meredith Vieira.
On the studio stage stood about five women, all glowing, smiley, and decked out in lingerie. The catch? They were mommies-to-be. That’s right. Bedroom chic for expectant mothers was the topic of discussion. Considering my complete lack of maternal instinct, I was tempted to turn the tv off when something uttered by the special guest stylist/fashion critic made me pause. While I don’t recall the exact quote, I remember the camera zooming in on a black mommy lingerie model as the critic noted the joy and pain of an increased bustline and a larger bottom, respectively, with the onslaught of pregnancy.
Hmmm…
I don’t know about you, but I wish my butt were bigger. Though it may seem trivial, the critic’s assessment of preferable body type could be easily considered the norm for only a few groups, of which black and Caribbean Latina women would customarily not be a part. As a large backside is generally more accepted, if not a expected aspect of the black and/or Latina beauty ideal, I find it humorous, though predictable, that the white female commentator would disregard this, making her comment as if ALL women want smaller bottoms and bigger boobs. But things went beyond petty and got a little worse (aka I kept the television on for a few more seconds in order to watch the ridiculousness unfold) when the critic turned to the next model: a pregnant blond in leopard print.
The critic guided us, as she noted that the next model was wearing “ETHNIC” print, which is really hot in this season’s lingerie lines. Last time I checked, leopard print wasn’t an ethnicity, nor were the people where, say, leopards live, covered in spots themselves. Though an innocent and completely unintentionally offensive slip of the tongue, the critic’s likening of animal print to ethnicity and, on top of that, the implications of the term “ethnic” (read: non-white; in this case, of African descent considering the type of animal print) indicate privilege and a disregard for the complexities of race. The Irish, for example, are made up of several ethnicities, as are many other groups of Europe, but their whiteness often shields them from receiving this moniker.
“Ethnic” is reserved for people of color. The term, while seen as PC and harmless, nevertheless evokes tons of images, often those relegating people of color to the lowest, most “primitive” of states. After all, tartan plaid isn’t considered “ethnic,” but animal print is? How is one to interpret this other than assuming that the person utilizing this term may have preconceived notions of or underlying biases against certain groups. And if not that, the use of the term in this way, on national morning tv, is an indication that the layers of meaning upon so many of the words we use can be easily ignored if the term is used in a lighter context. Will racist epithets become the racial categories of the future? Will they find their way deeper into our speech, songs, and media in the ways that “Eenie Meenie Mynie Moe” or terms like “Rule of Thumb” and “Gypped” (from “gypsy”) have weaseled into the American English vernacular?
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Jaye wrote:
Ive noticed that lately a lot of the posts have been about how mainstream concepts of beauty and attractiveness (ie. eye color, hair color, skin color) made them feel inferior and unattractive…and I’ve definitely connected with these posts because I’ve felt the sting of not measuring up to other people’s ideas’ beautiful is.
But what I’ve also noticed in my own life, is that a lot of the times, I truly don’t believe in or agree with the mainstream’s values of beauty…and I’ve been knocked down by other people for it. I’ve had people ASSUME that I couldn’t possibly not want my skin to be paler, I’ve had people ASSUME that I thought a light eye color is more beautiful, I’ve had people assume that I am always thinking about how I can get thinner…and I’m actually not.
I’d love to see some posts that talk about the fact that some of us feel good about the way we look, but that other people assume that we don’t or that we couldn’t possibly really like the things that the MSM tells us not to like.
Posted 21 Apr 2008 at 8:15 am ¶
Lauren O wrote:
Calling leopard print “ethnic” reminds me of the “ethnic food” aisle in the grocery store. A subtle but very efficient way to other people of color and establish white people as the default.
Also, I thought we were so over the small butt as a standard of beauty. Everyone always compliments me on my booty, except for my mom, who makes fun of it. I thought it was just a generation gap thing, but apparently not! Thanks for your bunk beauty norms, morning television. We all appreciate it very much.
Posted 21 Apr 2008 at 8:29 am ¶
marge perko wrote:
aiyee – am glad i missed that show on animal prints – so wrong on so many levels, AND so dehumanizing. also, i never thought about tartan that way – how true! batik is “tribal/ethnic”…but tartan – originally used to denote tribal/clan identities – is mainstream.
what do you think about trend reports like these – “ethnic as in…or out” trends:
http://www.style.com/trends/trend_report/011408/styletribes
Posted 21 Apr 2008 at 9:17 am ¶
Zenobia wrote:
I find the term ‘ethnic’ incredibly uncomfortable, because of all the reasons you mentioned, plus it feels like a euphemism for something unpleasant.
In fact, a Guardian reporter went under cover some time ago in the British National Party and found that, among other things, in an effort to appear more reasonable and mainstream they tend to use terminology such as ‘ethnic’ to refer to people of colour, and ‘the problems we face’ to refer to immigration.
I had a co-worker a while back who used to slam down the phone and shout ‘bloody ethnic!’ whenever she had to talk to this Turkish client, and I always suspected she was BNP. Another term to refer to people of colour was ‘foreigner’, another euphemism. In fact I think that kind of thing is illegal, but it was tolerated in that office – kind of striking that everyone working there was white as well, and always has been to my knowledge.
Posted 21 Apr 2008 at 9:39 am ¶
thesciencegirl wrote:
I had some similar thoughts recently when flipping through fashion mags that kept talking about how “ethnic” prints or “safari chic” are in for Spring. And then there’s inevitably a horrible photo spread with a skinny white model draped across an elephant or something.
Speaking of the ethnic food aisle at the grocery store, I had a good laugh when I moved to Boston for college several years ago and could not find the pasta and tomato paste that I needed to make my mom’s spaghetti recipe. I finally discovered these items in the “Ethnic” aisle, along with goya beans, curry sauce and tortillas, and I laughed because I was so surprised that Italian was considered “ethnic” especially in Boston. I do not understand the point of that aisle. My local store here in Chicago has an international foods aisle, which is where all of the Asian foods are.
Posted 21 Apr 2008 at 10:23 am ¶
Joanne wrote:
Re: the issue of ethnic in the UK, there is a huge variation from city to city and from supermarket to supermarket as to what foodstuffs go where, and what they’re called.
In my parent’s area in London, as befits a neighbourhood which is hugely culturally, religiously diverse, racially and ethnically diverse the supermarket labels the food aisles with purely descriptive labels like: Kosher, Indian, Mexican and for the smaller selections under a general sign of International… but in other tiny towns in the countryside, I’ve seen pasta put under a catch-all ‘ethnic’ or ‘foreign’ section.
So I’m not sure it’s purely a case of things which are non-White referred to as ethnic/foreign, I think it’s a case of anything not from old-school Great Britain (acknowledging of course that this is itself a construct!)!!
Re: the use of the word foreigner, in a similar vein, it’s definitely not only used to refer to people of colour. In my experience, it’s pretty much used for anyone that’s not from the UK. In fact, I think it’s more of a general use, xenophobic term.
As case in point, the last time I remember someone I know using it in my presence was my Sri Lankan Tamil-origin but English-born friend Rajiv using it to pejoratively describe a bunch of drunken White Australian guys on the tube (subway). As in: Bl**dy foreigners, why don’t they just p*ss off back to Oz…!
The thing with all these types of language are they are hugely imprecise and woolly and therefore end up being dismissive and disrespectful. That’s why I don’t like them being used. However, I’m not quite sure it’s as cut and dried in terms of POC v. White.
Posted 21 Apr 2008 at 11:41 am ¶
wendi muse wrote:
yeah i am def. not an authority on international use of the term “ethnic,” but in the US, it almost ALWAYS refers to POC, usually foreign-born
Posted 21 Apr 2008 at 11:50 am ¶
wendi muse wrote:
sorry just to add something here…it’s so coded to refer to POC that we have to say “white ethnics” when referring to non-anglo whites (italians, white jews, etc) much like people say “man whore” as opposed to just “whore” when referring to a man who sleeps around indiscriminately (as though the term “whore” only can refer to women).
Posted 21 Apr 2008 at 11:51 am ¶
marge twain wrote:
“Ethnic “could more strictly be defined as “they who don’t belong” Irish, Italians and Ashkenazi Jews used to be considered ethnic when they were actively discriminated against and not considered fully American. Irish people used to not even be considered white. Since they’ve become honorary white people, they’re not Hyphenated-Americans anymore and pride in their heritage isn’t some hard won brave statement like it once was.
I think it’s wretched that Black Americans are still “ethnic” after all these centuries. I remember my Cosmetology textbook had a subheading on “ethnic hair” with, literally, a picture of a black woman client (fig. 1) and an East Asian woman client (fig. 2) with instructions to cut their hair(assuming they all have the same hair texture)
As to the ethnic food aisle, here in CA, sometimes italian and kosher is included, sometimes they’re mixed in with the normal food. The concept bugs me. Even if they called it international, why can’t I get my sriracha chili sauce next to my texas pete or my tortillas with my sandwich bread?
Oh, and describing animal prints as “ethnic” goes beyond the pale. It’s R-A-C-I-S-T.
Posted 21 Apr 2008 at 4:18 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:
And, yikes, I had no idea about “eenie, meenie, mynie, mo” I’ll no longer hum that to myself when I can’t decide on something.
Posted 21 Apr 2008 at 4:36 pm ¶
islandgirl550 wrote:
That word “ethnic” drives me crazy. I actually wrote about the segregation of hair care products in the local drugstores in NYC. Why is there an ethnic hair aisle with crushed boxed of Dr. Miracles and bottles of Motions conditioner? And why is it relegated to a small section by the seasonal items? It’s like we are supposed to be ashamed of our haircare products. GRRRRRR! It make me believe that we are something “other” than the standard.
Posted 21 Apr 2008 at 7:38 pm ¶
meownette wrote:
I don’t mean to derail this thread, but I’m unclear as to how “rule of thumb” works as a racial slur or has troubling origins aside from an erroneous connection to domestic violence. The other two more under-the-radar bits of racist detritus are certifiably disturbing, though. It was really hard for me to stop saying “gypped” after I learned its origins a few years ago; it seemed so innocuous before that! I guess that proves how vigilant one has to be about like, everything.
Posted 21 Apr 2008 at 7:45 pm ¶
wendi muse wrote:
meownette:
i linked rule of thumb as it’s another phrase related to something that has negative origins (questionable or not, some people still think of it with that meaning) but has now been included into mainstream, everyday vernacular speech.
Posted 21 Apr 2008 at 7:53 pm ¶
sfsinger wrote:
It’s either ethnic or urban – 2 words that I have increasingly come to hate. I didn’t know about the eenie meanie origins either so I’ll make sure to never say that if I’m around a child ever again.
Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 1:03 am ¶
anais thomas wrote:
marge twain:
I agree with your post. I just wanted to point out that the phrase you used, “beyond the pale,” in itself has racist origins. It originally described the areas in Ireland beyond the fences that the English had constructed.
And while Irish-Americans have generally been accepted into the mainstream white culture of the United States, there is still a great deal of subtle racism that I have encountered in areas other than the predominantly Catholic upstate NY town where I grew up.
Race, ethnicity, and cultural identity will never be eradicated, nor do I wish for that to happen. Rather, I think the importance of this blog and its comments lies in our continual education of the ways in which racism trickles into our daily subconscious. Often it is blatant, but I think the most nefarious types of racism are those that we don’t even think about. I am guilty of this, despite the fact that I have lived in other countries, and have been a victim of racist slurs myself (for being a white American in countries where there aren’t many of us around).
This is my first time visiting this blog and I an deeply impressed.
Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 2:27 am ¶
Zenobia wrote:
“Re: the use of the word foreigner, in a similar vein, it’s definitely not only used to refer to people of colour. In my experience, it’s pretty much used for anyone that’s not from the UK. In fact, I think it’s more of a general use, xenophobic term.”
In that office it definitely was used for people of colour. I agree it isn’t in general, but it was in that case, because people were complaining about how ‘it’s always bloody foreigners who blow up planes and things’, with me, a white foreigner, sitting right next to them.
Also, someone referred to someone’s niece as looking ‘foreign’ because she had olive skin and dark eyes (it was even used as opposed to ‘gorgeous’).
Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 3:17 am ¶
f wrote:
I am born Indian and now living the the UK. It’s probably just me, but I am not quite sure I like the term “coloured” either, as a generalisation for any one that is not white. I quite agree with Joanne though, that language can sometimes be quite woolly and may be misinterpreted.
Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 8:41 am ¶
BoredKidz! wrote:
I think it’s hilarious and I don’t mean to be an asshole.. but why is the tiger striped pillow put in the same category “Safari” with the other patterns in the photo?
There aren’t any tigers in Africa…
o_O
Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 2:03 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:
@Anais Thomas: Thanks for the lesson; I can’t believe I said what I said, in that context, no less! Racism being intrinsic to our history, It’s unsurprising that it creeps into cultural idioms.
And welcome to Racialicious! I look forward to hearing more from your unique perspective.
Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 4:08 pm ¶
Anonymous wrote:
True, and sadly predictable. I can only think of those NYC middle-class types who go take bellydance courses and run around in bedlah copped from here to God knows where, coin and fringe and sequin popping out all over the place, marveling at how ‘cultural’ they’ve become.
While blending cultures is a beautiful thing, misappropriating them and fully failing to understand just how deep of an insult it is is quite another.
But that’s the way our market goes; colonize, then exoticize and make a profit off of it. Tack-on bindis made of glittery plastic for twelve-year old girls, imported otaku culture that capitalizes on the slightest move of the underground Japanese.
Then there’s haute couture–oh yeah…the article…
But seriously, if I see another cargo-cult cookie-cutter interior decorating store modeled after the pipe-smoking conqueror’s parlor after he drank from the skull of a rhino he shot that claims it’s representing ANY ethnicity whatsoever, however indirectly…Or another ‘asian-style’ cuisine in the diet section of the local grocery, or another Hiroshige-inspired wall scroll made by a digital arts major in Montana whose only exposure to another culture is his local eatery…
I might have to slap someone. It’s pretentious and erroneous and perpetuates an American gothic, a categorization of the exotic, strange, lurid and monstrous. Cultural artifact of domination and appropriation more than diffusion, I’d say.
Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 11:44 pm ¶
london(2) wrote:
i do not wear any type of animal print for this reason..
i do not want anyone to think of me in an animal skin subliminally in their heads… the bone through the nose thought is not very far behind..
i have been know to wear peacock feather earrings because i like the colours but that is it.. i do not put shells and stuff in my locks..
i have no respect for people of no colour who fill their homes with furniture from other cultures… their mentioning they wold lurve to go on safari thinking i would think it cool… getting to work is safari enough for me and i like to point out that people in africa have a healthy respect for lions etc and do not go looking for them, especially at night (wtf is up with that?)
i have no desire to travel through india, goa, thailand wherever either.. travelling because ‘everything is so cheap’ is not cultural it is ripping people off, showing off your relative wealth is sickening and no i don’t want to live in a tourists ‘beach hut’…
the whole ’safari’ look this season is just another way to sell khaki cotton drill fabric to kathryn hepburn wannabees…
i will stick with my denim and combat pants and military jacket basics for ever (well til later in my 40’s at any rate).. it is a war zone out there…
Posted 25 Apr 2008 at 1:33 am ¶