Trackbacks & Pings

1. “Chia Obama makes the statement, ‘I am proud to be an American’…” « This So-Called Post-Post-Racial Life on 28 Jul 2009 at 12:57 am

   [...] a whole post about my feelings about this WTFery. But I already exhausted my comments during a previous discussion about this completely unnecessary and degrading product. Plus, I failed my own blogging readiness [...]

Comments

1. Eva wrote:

   “It’s just like your friend who may not know much about your ethnic background: they say some shit, you call them out on it, they apologize and retract and they learn not to say that thing again. If they’re jerks they’ll think in their minds, “Damn, you’re sensitive. Whatever.” BUT if they’re humble about the fact they don’t know what it’s like to be Black/Latino/Asian/Middle Eastern/Gay etc. etc. in America today, they’ll shut up and listen to you.”

   I agree with this. All of us mess up, all of us make mistakes, we’re human. But the thing is do we learn or not? Some people want to remain in their shoebox and never leave. I’m nearly 50 and there are a lot of things I don’t know.

   Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 11:30 am ¶

2. Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:

   I’m sorry but I don’t see how that’s offensive or racist.

   Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 11:37 am ¶

3. mute wrote:

   I also don’t understand why this is offensive. Corny/tacky, yes. But racist? Let’s beware that we’re not diluting the word here.

   Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 12:01 pm ¶

4. Jaya wrote:

   I love Chia Pets, and I love Obama. I just wish the result of combining the two wasn’t so….

   Man, I don’t know what.

   Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 12:28 pm ¶

5. severina wrote:

   Not on the exact topic of the stupid chia pet/Obama thing, but addressing another part of the post..

   “It’s just like your friend who may not know much about your ethnic background: they say some shit, you call them out on it, they apologize and retract and they learn not to say that thing again…”

   I still think back to comments or jokes I made with high school and college friends that were not, by my then-definition, “overtly” racist, but which I now realize must have made my friends feel uncomfortable, frustrated, and conflicted over wanting to call me out on it but holding back because it would be too awkward or because I was entirely oblivious I had uttered something offensive. I was under the impression for the first 19-20 years of my life that that was what we were supposed to do — talk “freely” about race and ethnicity as much as any other “characteristic”/experience of an individual, as if it were no big deal, as if we as a society were past issues of racism. My misconception followed the ideas that we were learning at school Diversity Days and the like…the idea that we can all “celebrate the rainbow” of racial and ethnic diversity in our school AND be colorblind when it came to any of the potential prejudice, ignorance, or differences in experience that people of color and white people had among themselves.

   As in the situation brought up in the original post, if one of my friends had chosen to call me out on an offensive comment of mine, I probably would have been surprised, embarrassed, and tried to explain that my intentions were different (i.e. she had misconstrued my meaning; it was she who misunderstood)…but her words would have infiltrated my thoughts, eaten at me for a while, settled in until I felt nauseous like I do now when I think about the stupid little comments/jokes I obliviously made to people who were my friends.

   It wasn’t her job to educate me, I know. I usually can’t find the right words to call a guy friend out on something sexist he said that upset me, and I try not to beat myself up about that because his obliviousness can’t always be on me. But when someone is able to call that shit out on their friends, I think it’s a really good place to have criticism coming from. And it’s a way to make THEM feel uncomfortable for once…the people who have the privilege of otherwise being oblivious to it all.

   Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 12:36 pm ¶

6. Joseph wrote:

   “It’s just like your friend who may not know much about your ethnic background: they say some shit, you call them out on it, they apologize and retract and they learn not to say that thing again. If they’re jerks they’ll think in their minds, “Damn, you’re sensitive. Whatever.” BUT if they’re humble about the fact they don’t know what it’s like to be Black/Latino/Asian/Middle Eastern/Gay etc. etc. in America today, they’ll shut up and listen to you.”

   I really love you for writing this. This is the most realistic description of what it means to have some kind of marginalized identity in the real world that I have read in years. I don’t need the people in my life to walk on eggshells, I need them to take me seriously.

   …they still make Chia pets?

   Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 12:48 pm ¶

7. PPR_Scribe wrote:

   How is this insensitive?

   What other “pets” are in the Chia line? Animals of all sorts (cats, cows, frogs, pigs, and more). Garfield, Scooby-Doo, Homer Simpson, Bart Simpson, Kung-foo Panda, Shrek, the Tazmanian Devel, and more. Chia Christmas Tree and Chia herb gardens.

   And now Chia Obama. Really? Not offensive?

   What other actual human being has been made into a Chia pet thus far? At best Obama being part of this line is just a crass attempt to cash in on the Obama-conomy that includes everything from newspaper front page replicas to books to commemorative coins and plates. At worse it is yet another example of him not being seen as human and an aspect of him–his “funny” hair–being so fully “other-ized” that it can be morphed into sprouting plants.

   Interesting side note that folks will only know if they, like me, have actually grown a Chia pet: The commercials actually leave out a stage. At one point after you have spread the seedlings, in order to encourage grown you cover the planter completely in a plastic bag for a couple of days. How interesting that action would be with an Obama head.

   Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 1:14 pm ¶

8. Jess wrote:

   I too am not thinking this is particularly racist in and of itself, as other people have had chia — Mr. T and Bart Simpson among them.

   (The Mr. T one is kind of silly, actually, but I have to admit it is sort ‘a fun).

   As to people being unhappy with being called racist, there’s a few ways to look at this. First, think of the fact that nobody wants to be called a racist. If you went back to 1950 and hung around in Arkansas, nobody would care. Racism is viewed as a bad thing, right? So people worried about being called racists are by definition acknowledging that. That’s a step.

   Now, one of the things that happens a lot is that people do get confused about what is racist or not when it isn’t as obvious as all that. Sexism is similar, it ain’t always so clear. If it were then Andrea Dworkin would have had nothing to write about.

   So, what happens is — since people can’t read minds, and can’t experience what stuff is like for other people directly — sometimes you want to throw up your hands and say “OK, I am a white devil/evil male, now what?”

   It isn’t the right reaction, but it just shows you have to get beyond the “you are evil because you are a racist” line.

   Again I am not excusing racist behavior, just trying to say that I never assume anyone is as aware as anyone else or that I am as aware as I would like to be. I have talents. But mind-meld is not among them. At times I think it’s easy to go after people without stepping back and saying “waitaminnit, was my racial/social consciousness fully formed from day one?”

   For most people I would expect the answer is no. You can’t assume everyone knows what you do.

   Is it fair? No. Life is not fair. But you can try to make it so it’s a little more so for other people later.

   People don’t always listen, they aren’t always willing to be educated, but I’m as guilty of that as anybody else. So I try to understand where people are coming from a little bit, even if I don’t like it.

   Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 1:32 pm ¶

9. Liberty wrote:

   This reminds me of a Spike Lee movie. Anybody seen “Bamboozled” lately?

   Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 2:37 pm ¶

10. PPR_Scribe wrote:

    @Jess–I had forgotten about the Mr. T one. Actually that makes this case even more glaringly offensive than when I thought B.O. was the first real human to be Chia-petted. So am I to assume that only two real people have been made into Chia pets, both of them Black males?

    Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 2:40 pm ¶

11. Sapna wrote:

    Your last few paragraphs remind me of why I love reading this site. Thank you.

    I didn’t see what was racist about the grass afro, but assumed it had some North American specific context that I was missing out on. I still don’t quite get it? Is it fetishizing his afro?

    Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 3:30 pm ¶

12. pres wrote:

    I’m almost 50, black and male. Maybe it’s me but I don’t find a thing racist about the Obama Chia Pet. After all, the plant growth is reminiscent of the Prez’s natural.

    Tacky as hell, poor taste, classless, appalling, clever marketing, stupid, silly, offensive to the office of the POTUS – call it what you will and I’ll agree to each and every one.

    But I don’t see racist.

    Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 3:47 pm ¶

13. Maus wrote:

    Crass, tasteless, opportunistic, yes. Growing up with fuzzy hair, getting jokingly (and less jokingly) called “chia head” in the past, I can’t get too up in arms about it. I think it’s as great an evil as any of the other instacollectibles, like the scores of shitty plates.

    Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 3:49 pm ¶

14. Jess wrote:

    @PPR_Scribe– Chia has only officially marketed the Mr. T, but this is one of those items that is unofficially marketed as well. That is, you could see knock-offs with other people (though they wouldn’t be called “Chia.”

    I remember there have been other people made into Chias, even if it wasn’t their official line. And there was the original “Chia Guy” that was white-looking, though there’s no real way to tell given the way it’s made, it’s more a caricature of a fat guy.

    I’m reluctant to read too much into the fact that the only official ones were Mr. T. and Obama. There IS such a thing as chance and pop culture trends coming together in a certain way. Remember, Mr. T was pretty ubiquitous in the 80s. If Albert Brooks was as big a star, you might see one of him, you know? But he wasn’t.

    Also, the heads aren’t caricatures of Obama –far from it (at least they don’t look caricatured to me, except insofar as they are made cheaply in Mexico or China and you’re not expecting hyper-realism here).

    I like Obama, but let’s look at other stuff- they make Obama bobbleheads. Is that racist? What about the thousands of bobbleheads they do at every baseball game? Making fun of Obama is not in and of itself racist. Yeah it’s his hair but it’s a chia pet.

    Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 3:50 pm ¶

15. PPR_Scribe wrote:

    Tacky as hell, poor taste, classless, appalling, clever marketing, stupid, silly, offensive to the office of the POTUS

    I agree that the Obama Chia is all these things. Repeatedly in such conversations we get hung up on intent vs. outcome. The intent of the Obama Chia may not have been “racist” nor its maker (or purchasers) “racist.” But the impact of the product, IMO, is racially problematic and demonstrates real racial insensitivity.

    Besides the random, White “Chia guy” (and, I think there is also a “Chia Professor” on the website) two other Chia people have been part of the line–both based on models of real people, both Black men. Why has there been no long line of “Chia Presidents”? Why, when other popular icons have hit the national stage have their images not been used as Chia pets?

    This is not the same as making every and anyone into a bobblehead or cartoon caricatures. Why, specifically, is Black hair in the same category as Bart Simpson’s ‘do or animal fur as something fun for all ages to grow?

    Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 4:12 pm ¶

16. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    I’ll cosign PPR Scribe.

    I understand why some of y’all that this doesn’t seem like a big deal. But it actually is – and I say this as a person who just transitioned from “normal”
    (i.e. chemically relaxed) hair into my natural hair, which is a curly fro. People stare at my hair all the time (though no one has asked to touch, thank heavens) before deeming it cool or interesting or exotic or something. It is an instant “other” marker – and while I choose to rock a natural, I’m not going to pretend that people don’t interact with me differently now.

    It’s also interesting that while real life Obama has a conservative shape-up, chia-Obama is predicated on him growing an afro – a style he hasn’t sported in years.

    (I’m trying hard to think of a politician with an afro, but I’m not coming up with anyone – as we saw with the Glamour flap from a couple summers ago, and the Michelle Obama New Yorker cover, afros are still coded as unprofessional and/or militant.)

    What I am finding interesting about all of these little Obama products (or Baracksploitation, as Current TV is calling it) is that most of these tend to overemphasis certain racial features – like the doll sporting super dark skin or the Obama waffles with all the racist bells and whistles, and this. It’s less severe than the others, but it follows that same continuum.

    (I’d also like to note as a DC resident who was in the city for the inauguration, most of the Obama swag people were hawking had a realistic rendition of how Obama actually looks – so not all the products being sold with his image take the same liberties.)

    Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 4:31 pm ¶

17. B. Canseco wrote:

    This is a horribly corny product. I’d be more forgiving if it were a Flava Flav bust or even an Angela Davis bust as she’s often associated with an afro hairstyle despite not having rocked said ‘do in years.

    the bigger problem with this is that Obama doesn’t fit any of the stereotypes we’re so quick to saddle black males with and we can’t wrap our collective heads around a man of color in such a high authoritative position who doesn’t fit in the way we want him to.

    That’s why 99% the obama jokes make no sense—they’re all predicated on “wow he’s not like all the other black guys! isn’t that funny?!”

    Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 5:14 pm ¶

18. B wrote:

    Who cares if the idea wasn’t conceived in a racist way?

    If you think you have a great idea that you put into motion and then realize, “Wait a minute, in practice, this ended up being racist/sexist/etc,” the smart (honorable?) thing to do would be to nix that idea.

    You don’t just do something without evaluating it somewhere along the line. I’m not going to give someone a pass for mistakenly coming up with a rude idea, they’re responsible for critically thinking about their work product. I do it every time I hand in something to my boss and I’m not even creating things for public consumption.

    Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 5:58 pm ¶

19. Brooklyne Gipson wrote:

    I agree with this article. I also feel like people really need to start picking and choosing their battles. I didn’t necessarily think the Obama Chia pet was racist, as much as I thought it was just kind of silly (perhaps disrespectful), but those people who complain about everything (esp. junk like this) really annoy me.

    People need to learn how to tell the difference between something being “racist” and “racial.”

    http://tinyurl.com/dgr83z

    Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 6:34 pm ¶

20. SarahNicole wrote:

    @Latoya: you could always preemptively buy this t-shirt: http://www.cafepress.com/r_a_n.68776515

    It is on my ever-growing list of t-shirts to buy so that I can just stop talking to people.

    Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 6:54 pm ¶

21. Ratrace wrote:

    Well, there’s the obvious Enstein rip-off “Chia Professor” as well. It’s tacky but it doesn’t come off as a racist caricature and I wouldn’t have taken it that way if others weren’t making the case to take it so. And that’s a weak case at best.

    Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 9:16 pm ¶

22. Medusa wrote:

    @ mute and Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist: You’re right, it’s not offensive. I, for one, have really enjoyed spending my entire life being ridiculed for my hair, having it compared to horse hair, pubic hair, sheep’s wool, Brillo pads, and now a Chia plant!

    Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 10:42 pm ¶

23. Ain't I an African? wrote:

    I don’t actually understand what is offensive about this product. I do recognise however that since I haven’t lived for any significant length of time in the United States, there are certain nuances, slights and outrages that I don’t understand.

    Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 3:12 am ¶

24. Afro-chan wrote:

    First there was the “Chia Head”. It was a man but no one in particular. I just think it is another cheesey Chia product. It’s no worse than the Obama underwear.

    Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 4:37 am ¶

25. L. wrote:

    Wow! I honestly can’t believe that people are (legitimately) describing why this is offensive, and it’s still being written off as people overreacting. Let’s not forget the fact that people who have big, curly/kinky hair are often referred to as chia pets. I mean damn, did some of you even read this article:
    “And I mean really listen. Listen with an attitude of wanting to learn something rather than one of ‘I know more/How can I disprove what is being said to me?’ Stop appropriating the space and allow others to educate you for a minute.”

    I also think it’s funny that people are calling freakin’ BART SIMPSON a person. And does the fact that Mr. T’s hair was an actual part of his image and persona not mean anything or present any significant difference between his fraud chia and some random ass Obama chia?

    @ Jess: “Making fun of Obama is not in and of itself racist. Yeah it’s his hair but it’s a chia pet.”

    What exactly are they making fun of? What about Obama specifically is present in this product that is being played up for comedic effect? Have you seen the president lately? I’ve not seen a picture of Obama since those of his, what, early college days (maybe younger) wherein he’s even had an afro. So I ask you again, what are they making fun of? Even if he had an afro, what are they making fun of? (And please reread that sentence, especially the last part, and realize how dismissive it is. Yeah it’s his hair, and that’s the point. If we’re going solely on very influential people, where’s… say… an Elvis chia? Wait, you mentioned Mr. T’s popularity, so is it just 80s? A Madonna chia? What about the chias for the Brat Pack? They felt it was appropriate to make an Obama chia because negros have fros.)

    Let me put it this way. When people do the slanted-eye gesture, it’s offensive (or so I thought) because it’s making fun of a natural feature of Asian-descended peoples. It’s essentially saying “Hey, this is how Asian people look! Isn’t it funny!”

    Now, this chia pet is taking a natural feature of black African-descended people and basically saying “Hey, our president is black, and this is how black people’s hair look. Isn’t it funny… you know… ‘cus it looks like a bush… or something big and wild… see? Now buy it!”

    Both features have been used to marginalize the people of the respective races. (And I hope I didn’t minimize the offensiveness of the slanted-eye gesture, as it was not my intent.)

    If someone says or does something that is offensive (or idiotic or tacky or whatever other adjective everyone else finds appropriate enough), on the basis of a racialized feature (especially one with a history of oppression/marginalization), what does that make it? What is racist? Is “racially offensive” or “racially problematic” a better term? Does using those somehow make it better or less offensive, and somehow not a part of the wider schema of racism?

    “Why, specifically, is Black hair in the same category as Bart Simpson’s ‘do or animal fur as something fun for all ages to grow?”
    PPR_Scribe (above) and Latoya said it best; the chia Obama is a product made in the tradition of othering afros. In short, it’s operating within an already well-established system of oppression, and thus perpetuating it.

    Apparently, it’s a vain attempt to make others see that a traditionally comical product that uses a racialized feature to sell the funny is problematic. Nevertheless, I would like to share something:
    I got my first relaxer around 5 or 6 years old because my hair was too big, thick, and “unmanageable.” I wore my hair relaxed for about 11 years until my senior year in high school. Throughout that time, I’d always gotten compliments on how long and pretty my hair was. Being a pretty shy kid, I was known throughout high school as the smart pretty black girl with the long hair.

    Senior year, I made the mistake of telling my big-mouthed best friend that I was going natural. For weeks, she would look at my head funnily and make little remarks. Then in 1st period one day, she told the class. I had two people come outright and tell me that I would be ugly. In the next period, she told our math teacher, who then laughed and told me not to do it. In fact, both she and my best friend would make jokes and laugh about it damn near every day for the rest of the year. Suddenly, I had become the “afrocentric” girl. When I would talk to my friend both in person and on the phone, she would often remark (and this is a direct quote) “you need to perm that shit on your head.”

    That was 3 years ago. I now have a full blown afro, and both my mother (who supports my natural hair as long as I keep it pressed) and my grandmother ask me constantly when I will straighten my hair next. I recently visited my grandparents with my hair in a pony-tail (and yes, afros get long enough to put in a pony-tail), when my grandfather basically said that my hair is a joke. No one seems to care that my hair is basically the same length that it was before, and that it’s healthier and I don’t have breakage anymore.

    I don’t know if this means anything (except for the fact that just because black people—especially ones who may not have an afro—say it’s not offensive doesn’t make it the ultimately true), but every person I just mentioned was black. Within the past month, I’ve had both white and black friends call my hair “awesome” (exotic), “weird” (explains itself), and “attitudinal” (problematic/militant). One even jokingly suggested that I use it to scare people away (in reference to us being antisocial, but hey it’s a joke, right?).

    All of this is to say that afros (and black hair in general) are greatly stigmatized and, ironically, deemed unnatural and unacceptable. And as mentioned before, the fact that our president doesn’t even have a damn afro is very telling. Even if your ultimate intent is to capitalize off of the popularity of our first black president, the thought process had to have been somewhere along the line of “Hey, the president is black. And you know what black people have… big afros. I’m thinking we’ll make a chia Obama based on his afro… that he doesn’t have,” minus that last part, of course.

    So, I know this is long, but I hope that for some of you who don’t find it that big a deal, you can at least somewhat see why it sure as hell is. Think about all the little black girls who are already told that they are lesser than, who are forced to sit in hair salons for hours at a time, getting dangerous chemicals applied to their hair, who don’t tell the beautician that it burns because they want their hair to be as straight as possible so they can be pretty. Who, in several years, are no longer able to grow their hair past their chins. Who, in even more time with even more overprocessing because it makes the ugly stuff go away, have bald spots on their heads from chemical burns, and are no longer able to grow their hair at all.

    Think about the little black boys who are told that wearing any hairstyle outside of a low-cut fade will make them look weird or like a criminal.

    Think about all the black people who think that something that grows out of their own scalps as natural as the daylight, is ugly; who would even go so far as to refer to it as “shit.”

    Why is that? Could it be because for centuries, people have been pointing at our hair and saying “animalistic” “primitive” “weird” “wild” “different” “wrong” “problem” “ghetto” “unprofessional” “ugly” “funny” “radical” “trouble”. Is it not a problem that people even feel the need to point at all?

    Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 4:38 am ¶

26. Eva wrote:

    I’m glad my experience with having an afro hasn’t been bad at all. In fact I got my latest job while having natural hair. No one even looks twice at my hair and if they do it has more to do with whatever color I’ve chosen to dye it.

    Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 9:16 am ¶

27. Brandon wrote:

    I think that analogies work well when people are struggling to see something as offensive or racist.

    So here are a few:

    1. How do we feel when white people “dress black” and don afros for parties or Halloween?

    2. What if the focus of the Chia-Pet was skin color? What if the clay were white, and through some magic chemical it gradually turned brown? What if it went past Obama’s actual pigment and ended up a really dark, chocolate brown? Would that be an OK product?

    Answers to the previous questions (for many of us):

    1. Yes, we do have a problem with this.

    2. Of course this wouldn’t be an OK product.

    And so my final question… how is this ANY different?

    Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 9:17 am ¶

28. PPR_Scribe wrote:

    Well, there’s the obvious Einstein rip-off “Chia Professor” as well.

    As in Albert Einstein? Another real person who was known for “wacky” (and “ethnic”) hair? A Jewish man who left Hitler’s Germany just in the nick of time?

    Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 10:17 am ¶

29. Lizzie wrote:

    Cosign to L!!!!!! You’ve raised many points that were racing through my mind as I was reading over people’s comments.

    I am annoyed and disappointed that many of the regular readers and commentators on this site are being so quick to dismiss the Chia-head or whatever of Obama as being inoffensive or not particularly racist. Although I am a relatively new visitor to this site I am almost certain that at some point in its history someone has posted something about the LONG history of racist visual depictions about racialized people in popular culture, particularly those that have circulated within the so-called Western parts of the world. L is dead-on in highlighting and pinpointing the particular pathology that exists around black hair, the othering of it, the fetishizing of it, the likening of it to something unusual or “exotic”.

    I find the comments that run along the lines of, ‘I’m sorry but why is this racist?’ to be especially offensive and lazy!!!! I don’t want to repeat what L has already addressed, as she has done a fantastic job of articulating the MANY reasons why linking a toy PET to a (black) person who belongs to a group of people who have historically been compared to animals, been deemed as less than human and OBJECTIFIED in popular culture, but you really should do some reading/research on your own. To come to a site such as Racialicious and basically ask why something is being deemed racist/offensive/problematic is really unacceptable. That’s racism 101. And it’s not that I am expecting everyone to come to this site armed with a thorough knowledge of every single marginalized group’s history but the reasons as to why the Chia Pet/Head of Obama are offensive are clearly outlined in the original post. Maybe some of the commenters here need to re-read it, especially the part where the author states that people need to learn and be educated.

    Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 10:25 am ¶

30. Amused0472 wrote:

    Really, how different is this from the “Slanties” sunglasses? Maybe no overtly racist intent, but it is highlighting a feature of people with African heritage for the purpose of amusement. Oooh look, pour the water and watch the afro grow.

    Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 10:40 am ¶

31. little mixed girl wrote:

    honestly, this chia-head looks more like bill clinton than obama to me.

    and i thought that there were other chia-heads?
    and it seems just like another way to cash in on the obama popularity. …and it’s bill clinton!!

    Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 12:04 pm ¶

32. Bagelsan wrote:

    I hadn’t seen this as racist originally, but I think I’m convinced now. (Partly because I didn’t even know what a chia pet *was* before the comments here. :p) The “joke” they’re making wouldn’t fly if Obama weren’t black, I think, so that suggests racism to me.

    At one point after you have spread the seedlings, in order to encourage grown you cover the planter completely in a plastic bag for a couple of days. How interesting that action would be with an Obama head.

    But the above seems like analyzing this a little too far. It’s not like this step is Obama-specific in any way, and calling it “interesting” wouldn’t really work with any of the other chia people (unless there is a thing about strangling Mr. T that I don’t know about…) The whole thing is like “lol, his hair!” not “lol, I want to murder him!”

    Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 1:07 pm ¶

33. embarcadero113 wrote:

    @SarahNicole: Thank you SO MUCH for that link! I just bought a tshirt.

    Funny, I linked a (white) friend to this post, and our conversation followed, almost word-for-word the commentary here: He claimed it was tacky, but not racist; I explained how it was racialized and “Otherizing.”

    I’ve worn every hairstyle known to Black women– rocked a natural for many years of my life. My few “bad” experiences when I wore a natural were from other women of color. I could hear their whispers and their urging that I “get a perm.” But I had so much confidence, and still got so much POSITIVE attention (from both men and women), that eventually, even they silently admired my “courage.”

    Ironically, now that I wear my hair straight, “natural” Black women tend to treat me with the same disdain as their permed and pressed counterparts once did. How funny, I’m required to choose sides. I refuse to do so. So there.

    That said, the value of this post is not about the Chia Pet itself, as much as how we need to humble ourselves to the experiences of other oppressed people, especially those of which we know nothing about.

    The line (oft-quoted in these comments) is golden– “Listen with an attitude of wanting to learn something rather than one of “I know more/How can I disprove what is being said to me?” Stop appropriating the space and allow others to educate you for a minute.”

    I hope they make a Tshirt out of that.

    Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 1:31 pm ¶

34. PPR_Scribe wrote:

    Bagelsan, no–not reading anything racist in that step in the growing process. I just think it might be interesting to see if, cognitively or emotionally, doing that step would be different with a President Obama chia versus a, say, Bart Simpson one.

    I think it might be different or odd for me. (As someone who does not hate Barack Obama.) Whether the step would have any negative overtones I guess would depend on who is buying the product. Would a teabagging party attendee, for example, feel the same strangeness at encasing a likeness of Obama in a plastic bag?

    I don’t know. I just find the question interesting.

    Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 1:31 pm ¶

35. J.A. wrote:

    Thank you so much L!!

    Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 2:08 pm ¶

36. Rchoudh wrote:

    Great post! Sometimes it’s hard to tell whether someone is really willing to listen to what you say or just hiding whatever their beliefs about you are so as to not offend you (at least in public).

    As for this “Chia Obama” I wonder if this product was purposefully made to generate some controversy about them just so the public would still be aware of their existence. I didn’t even know they still made Chia pets until this dumb product of theirs. You know what they say after all “Any publicity is good publicity (even the bad ones)”.

    Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 2:12 pm ¶

37. Lola Adesioye wrote:

    Personally, I still don’t find this thing “racist”… And I think that racist is becoming such an overused word that it’s very unhelpful in discussions. It may be offensive, or insensitive, even ‘racialized’ or problematic but racist, no…

    I mean, where else is the hair meant to grow from? his nose? or his armpits? Any chia pet that is based on a character or actual person is going to have the grass growing from its head….

    Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 3:26 pm ¶

38. too embarassed wrote:

    I think that this is probably an offensive object, because it really really makes me want a Chia McCain–because I think it’d be hysterical.

    And the reason why it seems to funny to me? Because it would be John McCain with an Afro, which he obviously couldn’t and wouldn’t grow himself. Because, you know, he’s some stodgy old white dude.

    But that’s only funny because… its racist. Kind of like watermelons on the White House lawn. That’s not just funny because “black people like watermelons”, its also funny because “white presidents would never grow water melons on the White House lawn”. Ditto for throwing a ghetto party or wearing black face.

    Maybe that’s just a reflection of my own latent racist tendencies. But I’m inclined to say that reversing the identity of the object and getting a funny racist joke doesn’t speak well of the original.

    Sigh, if you feel this is non-contributory LP, please delete it.

    Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 5:23 pm ¶

39. Miles Ellison wrote:

    I’m curious. Was there a Reagan, Bush, or Clinton Chia Pet?

    Posted 18 Apr 2009 at 2:12 am ¶

40. Gianni wrote:

    It’s interesting to me that just because *someone* ‘thinks’ something isn’t racist it magically isn’t.

    Nevermind the fact that it’s a Chia ‘Pet’ and it’s directly making fun of our hair.

    Must be nice to have the luxury of remaining blissfully ignorant.

    Posted 18 Apr 2009 at 11:02 am ¶

41. pm wrote:

    I’ve never heard of or seen a ‘Chia pet’ before. Its the first time I’ve even encountered the concept, so I’m not aware of the context to this.

    Would it still be racist if it had been just the latest in a long line of ‘Chia pets of Presidents’ (stretching back to George Washington, and including ones without any grass for the bald ones) out of interest?

    Is it the fact that they’ve singled out the first black President to be the first to get this, slightly diminishing, treatment, that gives it a racist edge?

    Because I can see that doing so implies a statement about black people’s hair that is unpleasant and crass.

    Also while (as a non-American), I don’t particularly agree with the US concern for ‘respecting the office’ of President there’s something dodgy about _suddenly_ treating the Presidency in this particular diminishing way _only_ when a black guy gets the job.

    Posted 18 Apr 2009 at 4:43 pm ¶

42. Tracey wrote:

    @ L. Cosign, cosign, cosign, cosign, cosign.
    Grrrr. I have to take responsibility for this product though. After all, I was the one who asked “How much worse can this whole Obama merchandise frenzy get?”

    Posted 18 Apr 2009 at 4:50 pm ¶

43. BrownSkinLady wrote:

    Thanks for writing about this, PPR Scribe. I definitely think the Baracksploitation products that have popped up need some serious discussion, despite their ‘novelty’ aspect.

    Also, cosign to Gianni. I’m not African American, but I have very coarse Indian hair and have been told all sorts of problematic, racist things (from white and brown people) about what my hair is like and should be instead. Hair, like many other parts of the body, is a site for power relations.

    By the way, I am really disappointed to read the debate on if this is ‘racial’ v ‘racist’. I am wary of this argument as it frequently crops up whenever acts of covert racism or racial micro-aggression are mentioned. Sounds like a way to depoliticize racism and justify the status quo to me.

    Last I checked, racism is when racial differences are evoked to produce a hierarchy where certain groups are considered superior and others inferior. A Chiapet that imposes an Afro on Obama (who does not wear one), given that black hair has been portrayed as everything from ugly to requiring control (by heat, chemicals, and what have you) to militant to exotic/native, is certainly racist especially when considered it’s being marketed to a mainstream American public as a novelty product (because what do we use a Chiapet for anyway?).

    I don’t think anyone is suggesting this Chiapet is the most pressing form of racism that deserves all our immediate resources, but that it should be noted, analyzed, and deconstructed. But if readers are going to deny and dilute this incident of ‘racism’ as ‘racial’ or just a depoliticized ‘offensive’, then why read Racialicious at all?

    Again, thanks for the stellar post. I look forward to more!

    Posted 18 Apr 2009 at 5:48 pm ¶

44. BrownSkinLady wrote:

    Yikes, I misread! Props to the guest contributor, The Elahater, who is the author, and to PPR Scribe’s comments.

    Posted 18 Apr 2009 at 5:53 pm ¶

45. c.n.edaw wrote:

    Wasnt there a Chia Clinton, though? I swear I saw one. Just putting it out there for everyone saying only black men are chiazed..if that’s even a word.

    Posted 18 Apr 2009 at 9:40 pm ¶

46. c.n.edaw wrote:

    By Clinton, I meant Bill.

    Posted 18 Apr 2009 at 9:41 pm ¶

47. The Elahater wrote:

    Hi all. The comments and discussion generated here are great. Thanks so much for the kind words on the post.

    Many folks have brought up some interesting points. I think one thing to note is that Walgreens pulled the product after people complained over the product being racist (although now it’s being sold for even more on eBay because of that. Sigh.). That means that they are responding, but their response is totally reactionary.

    Cosign on B. Canseco’s point, “Obama doesn’t fit any of the stereotypes we’re so quick to saddle black males with and we can’t wrap our collective heads around a man of color in such a high authoritative position who doesn’t fit in the way we want him to.”
    Let’s not kid ourselves: marketing Obama is not like marketing any other president. We can’t simply forget such a long history of how media and marketing portrayals of black people were used to oppress them. There’s not a similar history of systematic oppression when it comes to white men.

    When Obama was elected, I, along with many others, predicted that people would feel more and more comfortable with portraying Obama, making jokes about him, etc. And when that happens, some racist shit is bound to be said, bound to be created, bound to be marketed, and not out of ill-intent but out of ignorance (and lack of diversity within companies). So although this can cause a lot of anxiety among people who are beyond ‘racism 101′ in having to deal with what seems like a barrage of such incidents, it also provides an opportunity for dialogue and education. Like I mentioned in the post, though, this can only happen when it’s a true dialogue and non-marginlized groups remain humble and open to being educated in that process. How can we create such an atmosphere?

    Also, to clear up some of the questions raised…. Obama is apparently the second actual person (Mr. T is the other) to be made into a chia-pet: http://www.suntimes.com/business/1517034,CST-NWS-chiao08.article

    Posted 19 Apr 2009 at 4:15 am ¶

48. SKM wrote:

    Great post The Elahater, and L, your response is just gorgeous and eloquent– thanks.

    I want to second BrownSkinLady on this:
    I am really disappointed to read the debate on if this is ‘racial’ v ‘racist’. I am wary of this argument as it frequently crops up whenever acts of covert racism or racial micro-aggression are mentioned. Sounds like a way to depoliticize racism and justify the status quo to me.

    This over-parsing of fine shades of meaning between “racist”, “racial”, etc. strikes me as a form of denialism. The thinking seems to go, racism is very very bad, therefore it must be rare, and only terrible people would engage in it. Well it is bad, but it sure as heck isn’t rare, and we see all sorts engage in it on a daily basis. this denialism serves, as BrowSkinLady puts it, to justify the status quo.

    I also think that the drive to reserve the term “racist” for some arbitrarily-defined egregious examples (and, defined by whom btw?) is an attempt to define the term right out of the lexicon.

    I see the same thing happening to the term “misogyny”.

    Posted 19 Apr 2009 at 5:08 pm ¶

49. Samia wrote:

    In the end, a thing’s offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder and no one is (or need be) objective, so I don’t understand the arguments being raised in these comments. And I don’t see the point of refusing to validate a person’s honest discomfort and pain.

    I didn’t originally see this product as racist, but now feel foolish. I can understand and respect where the author is coming from. My hair is stringy and I’ve never had, oh, ALL OF AMERICAN SOCIETY tell me to “fix” it chemically. So I’m going to defer here to those individuals who have been and continue to be hurt by insults and jokes about their natural hair texture. I think it’s kind of crappy for people to read a post like this, go through some of these heartfelt comments and then pull a “BUT WHYYYYY?”

    A note for non-American readers: hair politics in the U.S. is an complex, enraging thing. If you’re curious to learn more, I suggest doing some reading about the post-Civil War New Negro movement, which seems to be when the trend towards chemical relaxing really got going. Such treatment was (and largely is) considered to be an absolute must for black American women who want to look beautiful, or professional, or generally presentable. There are real consequences for many black women who do not engage in these practices. There is a price to pay for loving your hair as-is. And that pisses me off. So yes, I can see why this Chia pet is getting to folks.

    Commenter B. Canseco hit the nail on the head for me. Most of the Obama novelty items that emphasize the President’s blackness draw their “humour” from his lack of conformity to stereotypes. People need to keep reducing him to this tired-ass black male trope. I suppose it serves to alleviate a largely white confusion and fear.

    Posted 20 Apr 2009 at 12:07 am ¶

50. Cocoa Fly Blogger wrote:

    I’m a black woman and I don’t find this is offensive. It’s just a Chia Pet. So what he has a fro. Where else is the grass supposed to grow?

    Posted 20 Apr 2009 at 9:25 am ¶

51. grateful listener wrote:

    @25. L., cosign, and I’d like to add another t-shirt option: http://www.zazzle.com/angryblackwoman.

    Posted 22 Apr 2009 at 11:46 am ¶

52. Elandra wrote:

    Isn’t there an Art Garfunkel one too?

    Posted 10 May 2009 at 5:24 am ¶