Concerns About Racism Are “Weird”

by Guest Contributor Lisa, originally published at Sociological Images

We recently posted about a baby doll pulled from Costco shelves after concerns that it was racist. Early news stories reported on a black doll called “Lil’ Monkey” and a white doll called “Pretty Panda.” As the story developed, it became clear that both dolls came in white, black, and Hispanic versions. It made for an interesting discussion: (1) Given the history of associating black people with primates, would it have been racist had the doll only came in black monkey and white panda versions? And (2) given the history of associating black people with primates, was it racist, regardless, to make a black “Lil’ Monkey” doll that potentially triggered and/or effectively ignored this history?

The CBS affiliate in Denver linked to our post and discussion in their story about the controversy…

…which was published under “weird news.”

Screenshot:

I am trying to keep my cool here.

Justification for African slavery was built on an association of black people with primates designed to deny black humanity. Institutional, social psychological, and symbolic racism is ongoing in the U.S. and profoundly inhibits the life chances of black and brown people.

And yet when people say “hey, this makes me uncomfortable,” they are ridiculed and slotted into “weird news.”

It doesn’t even matter whether the intent or effect of the doll is racist. Let me say that again: For this discussion, it doesn’t matter whether the intent or effect of the doll is racist.

Concerns about racism are trivialized when raising the question is defined as simply “weird.” Even more, it is yet another way to deny the humanity of people of color. When they and their allies raise their voices to weigh in on what representations of blackness are acceptable, they are dismissed like petty children or lunatics. It is nothing less than a stunning lack of empathy.

If you needed evidence that we are not post-racial… well, there you have it.

Share and Enjoy:

Trackbacks & Pings

‘Lil Monkey’ doll causes controversy « Media Diversity on 06 Oct 2009 at 7:35 pm

[...] was researching racial issues and a blog post on Racialicious Web site caught my eye. In late July of this year, Costco Wholesale Corp. was forced to pull doll [...]

Comments

Karen wrote:

Im still trying to figure out what post-racial is. Is it just us ‘putting our fingers in our ears shouting “Not in our back yard”‘? (2009 New Stories from the South)

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 10:12 am ¶
Sean wrote:

Given the brouhaha over the recent New York Post cartoon, I find it profoundly astounding that Costco would greenlight this. It says one of two things: they are willfully ignorant and living in a bubble -or they are flagrantly racist.

And as far CBS labeling this under “weird news” -when did CBS and Faux News become affiliates?

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 10:42 am ¶
Marie wrote:

Maybe the “weird” tag is in reference to the fact that it didn’t occur to Costco that a black “Li’l Monkey” baby doll would be offensive to some. So, it’s not the reaction by certain members of the public that is weird, but Costco’s obliviousness to the essentially guaranteed backlash.
(That was the best explanation I could come up with for why anyone would think “weird” was an appropriate categorization.)

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 11:06 am ¶
Eric wrote:

Incredibly troubling. But I also wonder if it’s also a matter of ignorance (willful?) and naivete. The farther we get from suffrage movements, from the civil rights era, from slavery itself, I wonder how much people learn, or are required to learn in school, nevermind how much racial history is passed on from white parent to white child. I remember the “Sambo” controversy around the Nintendo game Scribblenauts a few months back (when the word “sambo” was written in the game, a watermelon appears), where the designers and the publishing company claimed total ignorance. Instead, they said that they included the word “sambo” because it is also a specific Spanish term for a type of gourd.

Obviously, this oversight is completely unacceptable, but this situation and many others makes me wonder, especially as populations today become more and more willfully segregated, if they are becoming more and more willfully ignorant about race history and race relations. Where it used to be a matter of dominant culture explaining away the problems of the past, I think it’s becoming more and more trying to forget it.

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 11:07 am ¶
jvansteppes wrote:

They need a section for “F****d up news that we wish wasn’t actually true”.

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 11:47 am ¶
Cindy wrote:

The best question in this post is how do we view this if the ‘lil Monkey doll was sold in white and black versions or only as a black version. I think many people would argue that the viewpoint does change, but I’m not buying it.

Even side by side, the white version next to the black version of this doll doesn’t erase the deep seeded negative connotations this has for African Americans. It’s a racist doll regardless of context. Shame on the producers of the doll. Shame on Costco for buying and attempting to sell the doll.

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 12:27 pm ¶
Eva wrote:

“Obviously, this oversight is completely unacceptable, but this situation and many others makes me wonder, especially as populations today become more and more willfully segregated, if they are becoming more and more willfully ignorant about race history and race relations. Where it used to be a matter of dominant culture explaining away the problems of the past, I think it’s becoming more and more trying to forget it.”

I think this is very true; it’s like they say in 12 step programs, the further away you are from a drink, the easier it is to forget that you’re an alcoholic.

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 12:32 pm ¶
Jess wrote:

I can’t believe Costco greenlighted this at all. The only explanation (not justification) I can come up with is they outsourced this stuff to a Chinese company or something and nobody on the staff was aware of the connotation. (That does happen sometimes — I mean, the connection of images is simply not the same in other cultures, though that in no way alters the situation for people seeing it here).

But that is the most generous explanation I can come up with. I mean, they could have made them all “pretty panda” and it wouldn’t have been a problem.

And I’d side with Marie a bit on why it was tagged as “weird.” As a former editor, I would have put it in that category for the same reasons she outlined, not because the reaction was weird — if anything, I’d be one of those saying “what the hell kind of reaction did you expect.” The only way to find out for sure is to ask CBS, tho, (or the local affiliate). The way to do that is to phone up the producer. (His/her name is in the credits) and just plain ask. They are usually nice enough people.

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 2:37 pm ¶
mute wrote:

If I had encountered this story on the CBS site first, I would have been thinking along the same lines as Marie. I wouldn’t have seen the classification of story under “Weird News” as implying that concern over racism is weird, but weird that folks were stupid enough to manufacture this sh*t and stock it in stores.

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 2:53 pm ¶
RCHOUDH wrote:

I agree with Eric in that I find it disturbing how little people nowadays know the history of racism and its ugly images in American society, which were still around even up to the turn of the last century! I remember reading a Dear Abby column recently in which some people actually wanted to know why Obama labels himself black instead of biracial or even white! Then they had to be given a brief history lesson about America’s one drop rule, which means that history classes today are not only failing to teach kids about the complexities of world history but even the many facets of American history that includes not just the good but the bad and ugly facets too.

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 2:54 pm ¶
Jadey wrote:

Not surprised. When Renee of Womanist Musings posted about this during her guest stint at Feministe, (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/08/17/costco-and-the-lil%e2%80%99-monkey-doll/ — sorry, not sure how to do a less messy link), a number of commenters tried to minimize and “explain” what had happened (as if institutional Whiteness weren’t explanation enough), and claim that the existence of the white and hispanic monkey dolls negated the racist implications of calling a black baby doll “L’il Monkey”. Plenty of people are perfectly willing–eager!–to give institutionalized racism a pass with the cover of plausible deniability, to the extent that a failure to do so is apparently just “weird”. Feh.

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 2:58 pm ¶
Sean wrote:

Hmmm, the jury is still out for me on labeling this news story as “weird.” It’s too ambiguous: What’s weird? A black doll named “Lil’ Monkey, or the backlash over it?

I’m with jvansteppes. This story should be filed under “effed-up.”

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 3:10 pm ¶
Medusa wrote:

I’m simultaneously surprised and not surprised at this. I mean, I’m surprised that someone conceived of this, and NO ONE from the conception to the manufacturing to marketing thought “hey, wait….is it cool to compare black people to monkeys? Isn’t there an entire legacy of of a really horrible institution in this country of black people being dehumanized and being compared to monkeys which led to and sustained their capture, enslavement, and violation of their civil rights that continues to this day?” Are there no black people working at Costco???

But I can’t say I’m surprised. My last two co-workers, during the New York Post Obama monkey fiasco said that it’s not racist because George Bush was also depicted as a monkey. THey went on to say that it’s a double-standard for me to say that the Bush-as-monkey and Obama-as-monkey scandals weren’t comparable, despite the fact that I pointed out that there was NO LEGACY OF WHITE PEOPLE BEING DEHUMANIZED AND BEING COMPARED TO MONKEYS in America. However, most of the population probably thinks more like those white co-workers that I had. Apparently, they all live in a magical, mystical world that has no historical context.

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 3:24 pm ¶
mieko wrote:

@Medusa:

I don’t disagree with your point, but actually there was a legacy of Irish people being compared to monkeys http://my.loudclick.net/Sites/3890/WWW/assets/images/IrishMonkey.bmp

Again, I do agree with your points- just clearing up some facts.

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 3:33 pm ¶
asada wrote:

I dunno. I get the strange feeling, since most toys are not made ( and certainly not designed) in the USA anymore this passed through ” inspection “.

I always felt strange when the playful monkey symbol became popular afew years ago ( by paul Frank). I found it attractive ( even wanted to wear it) but Im a PoC and Im well aware of what kind of message that animal has made.

This just brings back that awkwardness.

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 3:41 pm ¶
Julia wrote:

I’m snarkily musing if this is a very good definition of clueless whiteness: to live in a magical, mystical world that has no historical context.
Sigh.

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 3:41 pm ¶
moth wrote:

In addition to the Lil’ Monkey doll, the Scribblenauts game, the New York Post cartoon, see the comments on this article about Chicago’s Olympic pitch http://www.theroot.com/buzz/update-worldpresident-who-rio-wins at The Root, a black media website. So many of them make the “black people are apes” comment and for some unfathomable reason The Root has neglected to take those comments down.

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 5:04 pm ¶
Ruchama wrote:

I remember reading a Dear Abby column recently in which some people actually wanted to know why Obama labels himself black instead of biracial or even white!

Here are the two most recent columns on that: http://www.uexpress.com/dearabby/?uc_full_date=20090930
http://www.uexpress.com/dearabby/?uc_full_date=20091001

The original letter was back in July, but then there were a bunch more letters in response that she published in those two columns.

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 6:16 pm ¶
Montclair Mommy wrote:

I have to say that when I first saw the picture accompanying the article I started taking off my earrings before I even read the text. WHAT (???!!!) were they THINKING? My husband won’t even let our son wear clothes with a monkey symbol outside of the house (pjs are okay) b/c of the connotation. It really is a popular theme for infant/toddler clothes right now. It aggravates me a bit to always have to think about these things when dressing my son…when most of my son’s white friends wear whatever whenever. The petty benefits of white privilege, I suppose?

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 6:37 pm ¶
April wrote:

@mieko:

That link actually further supports Medusa’s point, because Irish people in the U.S. originally weren’t considered “white.” That cartoon pretty much paints the Irish as inferior, akin to (if not quite on the level of) black people.

Sorry to derail, but I think that’s worth pointing out.

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 8:41 pm ¶
ashlynn wrote:

“Weird News” is when a man is arrested for having sex with a lawn mower.

Suffice it to say, this is not weird news.

Who in their right mind can call anything post-racial when major companies- really people in general- still produce, market, and ACCEPT these gross racist mistakes? Not to mention that CBS labeling this as weird news is a TOTAL brush off- I can clearly see some white person on their laptop, reading this, COMPLETELY ignoring the blatant racism, and going “Hm. Weird,” and going on about their safe, secure, white-privileged day.

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 9:48 pm ¶
ashlynn wrote:

Also, @mieko, Irish people also have a history of being victim to many of the same prejudices that Black people have been as well, as you pointed out. Even within the context of White people, prejudice gets broken down even further into cultures and nationalities. And it hurts just has much. So why is it that so many White people never stop to think that some of them were once just as marginalized and oppressed? When does the cycle break? When does anyone learn?

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 9:55 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

Moth- wow. Now that’s a troll infestation. I’m thinking the Stormfront crowd arrived after the whole Gates thing, and they have no moderators.

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 9:55 pm ¶
Nin wrote:

Lil’ monkey? ……I’m stunned. I don’t even know anymore.

It doesn’t have to be racism to be upsetting. My goodness, I envy the people who can look at these things happening lately and think POCs are overreacting or actually shouting about nothing. I would LOVE to be *that* safe from the realities, context, history, subtext, social discourse and double entendres of the world.

It must be nice.

Posted 06 Oct 2009 at 12:42 am ¶
AppleGirl wrote:

wait…..so the lil’ monkey doll was released in White, Hispanic, and Black versions?? Would customers still offended had Costco sold only White and Hispanic lil’ monkey baby dolls? I think that it is kind of sad that we still associate black people with primates to this degree.

I don’t think that the children who would actually play with this doll would know anything about associating black people with monkeys……that is unless their parents behaved with racist attitudes when near their children (and equated black people with primates).

Posted 06 Oct 2009 at 12:47 am ¶
Medusa wrote:

@Mieko- Where did that picture come from???!?!?!? Good Lord… I had no idea about that…

Posted 06 Oct 2009 at 6:57 am ¶
diiorama wrote:

how about that there isn’t even an Asian option?

Posted 06 Oct 2009 at 12:37 pm ¶
Julia wrote:

@AppleGirl:
“I don’t think that the children who would actually play with this doll would know anything about associating black people with monkeys……that is unless their parents behaved with racist attitudes when near their children (and equated black people with primates).”

Maybe not. But what unconscious messages about race might children absorb? And all of those children have parents, who know enough to be negatively affected by this imagery. Surely that’s reason enough to reject these dolls.

Posted 06 Oct 2009 at 1:59 pm ¶
PPR_Scribe wrote:

When I posted about this story on my blog, one of the commenters objected, saying that the doll was really cute (and noting that the monkey was also paired with the White and Asian doll). Another time I wrote about the “updating” of the Uncle Ben image and had an angry commenter say how good the rice was.

I am perpetually confused about this defense: What does the attractiveness or appeal of a product have to do with the objectionable aspects (e.g., racist, sexist, etc.) of its presentation? If the doll is cute, then why can it not be cute without being paired with a monkey? If the rice tastes good, then why can it not be just as yummy without being fronted by an Uncle Remus-type character?

Posted 06 Oct 2009 at 2:58 pm ¶
mieko wrote:

@Medusa: I remembered it from a discussion we had in highschool, and looked it up on the internet.

@ashlynn and april: Irish and Irish-Americans are now considered white. That’s what I was trying to point out. But yes, once a group is considered white they do not face the monkey comparison as POCs do.

Posted 06 Oct 2009 at 6:07 pm ¶
agh wrote:

a few things come to mind…
the designation of this story as “weird news” is akin to someone telling me to “not be so sensitive” when i identify a comment or situation as racist….

cheers to Costco for pulling the doll from its shelves. if I were in charge I’d pull the “Pretty Panda” version also, just because I think this company should get zero profit on this ill-conceived toy.

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 1:52 am ¶
Jess wrote:

FYI y’all, I emailed one of the people at News 4 Denver to ask about the placement of the story in “weird news” (and I asked him if he wasn’t the right guy to direct me to the right person). Usually it’s the News Director or Assistant News Director but I could be wrong, so i just asked.

When/if I get an answer I will let you know.

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 11:28 am ¶
Jess wrote:

I know this is late and maybe nobody will see it, but I thought it important to post.

I just spoke to the web site manager at News 4, Jesse Sarles. He explained — as I understood it — that the section marked “weird news” was originally called “water cooler” and was designed to be about stuff that people would talk about (hence the name “water cooler”).

Anyhow, the deal is they changed it some time back to “Weird News” as a way of getting more eyeballs. But the section is still where a lot of miscellaneous stories end up. Those stories, by the way, are sent out from the CBS office in New York.

So, it would seem that the story got filed in there because that’s where stories that would get a lot of people talking would go. Whether they qualify as “weird” is another point entirely. A quick look shows that there’s a lot of stuff that wouldn’t necessarily be called “Weird.”

Mr. Sarles was quite nice about it, by the way, and didn’t indicate that concerns about racism — either on the part of people reacting to the doll or on Costco’s part — were that relevant to placing the story in “Weird News.” It was more that it was a story people would talk about.

I asked him — twice — about whether they thought it weird that Costco would let this through or thought concerns about the racism of the doll weird. He said (if I understood him correctly) that neither was part of the equation in that sense.

He also mentioned that he might change the title of the section. though he promised nothing. In addition, this issue came up before on a couple of other stories.

Jesse Sarles gets email, by the way, but if you have concerns please, please, be polite.

Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 4:06 pm ¶
Mieko wrote:

Thanks Jess for doing that!

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 2:02 am ¶