Victory! [Archive] - Yellowworld Forums

achtungbaby

10-19-2002, 09:47 PM

On Thursday, October 10, 2002, Yellowworld.org launched Project Anti-Disguise, a relentless, grass-roots campaign to raise awareness of the blatantly anti-Asian costume "Kung Fool." A petition was immediately created to offer a mechanism by which the frustration, anger and firm resolution of the Asian community could simultaneously and constructively be channeled.

With the generous support of the Organization of Chinese Ameicans, San Diego, Project Anti-Disguise launched a blitzkrieg-style media assault, voicing its message in television, radio, print and online coverage.

Eight days and over 8,300 signatures later, Disguise -- the largest costume manufacturer in the world -- has gotten the message.

"Disguise, Inc. will take steps to ensure these costumes will not be sold and sent an additional letter to retailers today requesting that they remove all 'Kung Fool' costumes from their shelves by October 18, 2002," affirmed Disguise EVP Stephen C. Stanley. "Disguise is also sending a letter apologizing for any insult or offense related to this issue, and we will continue to work diligently to ensure that these costumes are returned for destruction."

full story (http://petition.yellowworld.org/)

Andrew

10-21-2002, 08:14 AM

Is there anything in the statement that acknowledges as a factual matter that the costumes were offensive, or are they still trying to defend themselves with the excuse that it wasn't their intention to offend anyone? If the latter, then the company's position is basically that it was the Asian American community's choice to be offended by the costumes, and there's nothing Disguise.com can do to prevent us from choosing to be offended in the future.

Cf. "Why Abercrombie and Fitch Still Doesn't Get It (http://modelminority.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=21)" on ModelMinority.com.

achtungbaby

10-21-2002, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 21 2002, 08:14 AM
Is there anything in the statement that acknowledges as a factual matter that the costumes were offensive, or are they still trying to defend themselves with the excuse that it wasn't their intention to offend anyone?
No corporation that's ever offended any community will ever come right out and say, "Sorry, you're right, it was our intent to piss off Asian Americans. Our product is offensive to the Asian community and this is a fact." We might as well ask them to label themselves as racist while we're at it.

Remedial advertising is definitely something we could have hit them up with -- had we a better, more coordinated effort at the negotiating table. There are actually quite a few things we can do in the future, we just have to get everybody on board first.

Andrew

10-21-2002, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 21 2002, 05:57 PM
No corporation that's ever offended any community will ever come right out and say, "Sorry, you're right, it was our intent to piss off Asian Americans. Our product is offensive to the Asian community and this is a fact." We might as well ask them to label themselves as racist while we're at it.
They could have said, "Although we didn't appreciate it at the time we decided to market the costume, the Asian American community's response has enlightened us as to the significance of the racial stereotype contained within the Kung Fool design. We are now taking steps to educate the responsible parties and our creative team in general about the need to avoid racial stereotypes in our designs, to ensure that this doesn't happen again."

angel nympho

10-21-2002, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 21 2002, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 21 2002, 05:57 PM
No corporation that's ever offended any community will ever come right out and say, "Sorry, you're right, it was our intent to piss off Asian Americans.  Our product is offensive to the Asian community and this is a fact."  We might as well ask them to label themselves as racist while we're at it.
They could have said, "Although we didn't appreciate it at the time we decided to market the costume, the Asian American community's response has enlightened us as to the significance of the racial stereotype contained within the Kung Fool design. We are now taking steps to educate the responsible parties and our creative team in general about the need to avoid racial stereotypes in our designs, to ensure that this doesn't happen again."
"Insulting" is very subjective, if you hadn't already figured that out from the threads on this topic. I don't think it can be factual that the costumes were offensive. They can be percieved as so by many people, but it's more subjective than anything else. Of course the company isn't going to say "we made offensive products and that is a fact."

Andrew

10-21-2002, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 21 2002, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 21 2002, 06:26 PM

They could have said, "Although we didn't appreciate it at the time we decided to market the costume, the Asian American community's response has enlightened us as to the significance of the racial stereotype contained within the Kung Fool design.  We are now taking steps to educate the responsible parties and our creative team in general about the need to avoid racial stereotypes in our designs, to ensure that this doesn't happen again."
"Insulting" is very subjective, if you hadn't already figured that out from the threads on this topic. I don't think it can be factual that the costumes were offensive. They can be percieved as so by many people, but it's more subjective than anything else. Of course the company isn't going to say "we made offensive products and that is a fact."
They needn't have said, "we made offensive products and that is a fact," but they could have said, "Although we didn't appreciate it at the time we decided to market the costume, the Asian American community's response has enlightened us as to the significance of the racial stereotype contained within the Kung Fool design. We are now taking steps to educate the responsible parties and our creative team in general about the need to avoid racial stereotypes in our designs, to ensure that this doesn't happen again."

angel nympho

10-21-2002, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 21 2002, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 21 2002, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 21 2002, 06:26 PM

They could have said, "Although we didn't appreciate it at the time we decided to market the costume, the Asian American community's response has enlightened us as to the significance of the racial stereotype contained within the Kung Fool design. We are now taking steps to educate the responsible parties and our creative team in general about the need to avoid racial stereotypes in our designs, to ensure that this doesn't happen again."
"Insulting" is very subjective, if you hadn't already figured that out from the threads on this topic. I don't think it can be factual that the costumes were offensive. They can be percieved as so by many people, but it's more subjective than anything else. Of course the company isn't going to say "we made offensive products and that is a fact."
They needn't have said, "we made offensive products and that is a fact," but they could have said, "Although we didn't appreciate it at the time we decided to market the costume, the Asian American community's response has enlightened us as to the significance of the racial stereotype contained within the Kung Fool design. We are now taking steps to educate the responsible parties and our creative team in general about the need to avoid racial stereotypes in our designs, to ensure that this doesn't happen again."
Why don't you write their entire speech out for them, then. I think the fact that they issued an apology letter (that I have yet the chance to read) is deserving of my respect. Was their apology not good enough for you, or what? I didn't really think there WAS that much of a significance with the damn costume, so I don't think bowing down and kissing serious ass was totally necessary.

kasia

10-21-2002, 03:19 PM

they did acknowledge that it was offensive--even on national television.

they didn't do the whole, "we are very very very very sorry" thing like abercrombie. i dealt with these people personally and was able to recognize that they made a good faith effort to resolve the situation and comply with our demands

Andrew

10-21-2002, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 21 2002, 11:19 PM
they did acknowledge that it was offensive--even on national television.

they didn't do the whole, "we are very very very very sorry" thing like abercrombie. i dealt with these people personally and was able to recognize that they made a good faith effort to resolve the situation and comply with our demands
Thanks, you answered my original question. I gather then that the TV statement was more fully developed than the press release on their Web site, which basically pats themselves on the back ("We are a culturally sensitive company") and suggests that Asian Americans voluntarily chose to be offended by the costume ("It was not our intention to offend anyone"). This is a cop-out. Either this "culturally sensitive" company knowingly marketed a costume they actually believed was offensive, or they didn't actually believe the costume was offensive and are just humoring us. For those of us not in San Diego, can you tell us what they said on TV that went beyond their press release?

The statements I've read from Abercrombie have been pretty minimalist ("We didn't intend to offend anyone and will be removing the shirts from our stores."). What Abercrombie statement are you referring to?

Todos Personas

10-21-2002, 06:23 PM

A question:
Would it have been possible for Disguise to have changed your opinion of them, as a company, after the costume had already been designed, created, and sold? Or, were they dubbed "the Unforgiven" as soon as this came to light?

It seems as though it would be pretty tough to please most of you... Would you have preferred to have written the apology for them, or to have given them an outline of things to say? Okay! Sorry for the sarcasm, but the original question stands...

Andrew

10-21-2002, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Todos Personas@Oct 22 2002, 02:23 AM
A question:
Would it have been possible for Disguise to have changed your opinion of them, as a company, after the costume had already been designed, created, and sold? Or, were they dubbed "the Unforgiven" as soon as this came to light?

It seems as though it would be pretty tough to please most of you... Would you have preferred to have written the apology for them, or to have given them an outline of things to say? Okay! Sorry for the sarcasm, but the original question stands...
Yes, they could have issued a press release that wasn't facially self-contradictory and self-congratulatory. I've suggested one way they could have done this, but I dont think I'm the only person in the world capable of drafting such a document.

Suppose I drive down the left side of the highway at 90 miles an hour and kill someone, then issue a statement saying, "Andrew is a safe driver. It was never Andrew's intention to injure anyone. Andrew apologizes to anyone who may have been hurt or killed. Today he removed his car from the left lane of the highway. Andrew continues to drive more than 25,000 miles a year on America's highways."

Assuming that I am going to continue driving on America's highways, wouldn't you want my statement, at the very least, to acknowledge that I now realize that I was driving unsafely and am taking steps to become a safer driver?

Now compare my press release to Disguise's press release (http://disguise.com/html/discontinued.html).

angel nympho

10-21-2002, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 22 2002, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by Todos Personas@Oct 22 2002, 02:23 AM
A question:
Would it have been possible for Disguise to have changed your opinion of them, as a company, after the costume had already been designed, created, and sold?  Or, were they dubbed "the Unforgiven" as soon as this came to light?

It seems as though it would be pretty tough to please most of you... Would you have preferred to have written the apology for them, or to have given them an outline of things to say? Okay! Sorry for the sarcasm, but the original question stands...
Yes, they could have issued a press release that wasn't facially self-contradictory and self-congratulatory. I've suggested one way they could have done this, but I dont think I'm the only person in the world capable of drafting such a document.

Suppose I drive down the left side of the highway at 90 miles an hour and kill someone, then issue a statement saying, "Andrew is a safe driver. It was never Andrew's intention to injure anyone. Andrew apologizes to anyone who may have been hurt or killed. Today he removed his car from the left lane of the highway. Andrew continues to drive more than 25,000 miles a year on America's highways."

Assuming that I am going to continue driving on America's highways, wouldn't you want my statement, at the very least, to acknowledge that I now realize that I was driving unsafely and am taking steps to become a safer driver?

Now compare my press release to Disguise's press release (http://disguise.com/html/discontinued.html).
Wow, you're really making this company out to be some evil-minded Asian conspirator or something. It didn't seem self-congratulatory to me at all. Given, it wasn't kissing any ass or being overly sorry, but I don't want some stupid company acting all sorry and then turning around not giving a shit, either. You won, remember? They pulled the costume off their shelves. Do you expect them to be happy about this?

Andrew

10-21-2002, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 22 2002, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 22 2002, 02:59 AM

Yes, they could have issued a press release that wasn't facially self-contradictory and self-congratulatory. I've suggested one way they could have done this, but I dont think I'm the only person in the world capable of drafting such a document.

Suppose I drive down the left side of the highway at 90 miles an hour and kill someone, then issue a statement saying, "Andrew is a safe driver. It was never Andrew's intention to injure anyone. Andrew apologizes to anyone who may have been hurt or killed. Today he removed his car from the left lane of the highway. Andrew continues to drive more than 25,000 miles a year on America's highways."

Assuming that I am going to continue driving on America's highways, wouldn't you want my statement, at the very least, to acknowledge that I now realize that I was driving unsafely and am taking steps to become a safer driver?

Now compare my press release to Disguise's press release (http://disguise.com/html/discontinued.html).
Wow, you're really making this company out to be some evil-minded Asian conspirator or something. It didn't seem self-congratulatory to me at all. Given, it wasn't kissing any ass or being overly sorry, but I don't want some stupid company acting all sorry and then turning around not giving a shit, either. You won, remember? They pulled the costume off their shelves. Do you expect them to be happy about this?
No, I'm making them out to be a company that's more concerned with covering their derriere than with doing the right thing. I suppose we've become accustomed to such conduct from corporations, especially over the past year, but having learned some pretty hard lessons on Wall Street, I think we should all be aiming for a higher standard now.

You didn't respond to my hypothetical. Would you find my statement after the car accident fully acceptable, and welcome me back onto the road? If not, how is Disguise's statement any different? (I know you didn't find the costume very offensive in the first place -- let's agree to disagree on that point, seeing that the question at hand is whether those who were offended by the costume should be satisfied by Disguise's press statement -- and focus on the contents of the two statements.)

Finally, I'm not asking them to "act all sorry." In fact, that is what I am accusing them of doing. And my suggestion is quite the opposite of allowing them to "turn[] around [and] not give a shit." I think I have made it perfectly clear that they should have taken affirmative steps to ensure that they will not produce other offensive designs in the future, such as educating their creative staff about the harmful effects of stereotyping, so that in future they will "give a shit."

By the way, this isn't the first time (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/10/17/BU168521.DTL&type=business) Disguise has been pressured by activists to recall an offensive costume (the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill ran a campaign in 2001), so this action provides no assurance that it won't happen again.

angel nympho

10-22-2002, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 22 2002, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 22 2002, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 22 2002, 02:59 AM

Yes, they could have issued a press release that wasn't facially self-contradictory and self-congratulatory. I've suggested one way they could have done this, but I dont think I'm the only person in the world capable of drafting such a document.

Suppose I drive down the left side of the highway at 90 miles an hour and kill someone, then issue a statement saying, "Andrew is a safe driver. It was never Andrew's intention to injure anyone. Andrew apologizes to anyone who may have been hurt or killed. Today he removed his car from the left lane of the highway. Andrew continues to drive more than 25,000 miles a year on America's highways."

Assuming that I am going to continue driving on America's highways, wouldn't you want my statement, at the very least, to acknowledge that I now realize that I was driving unsafely and am taking steps to become a safer driver?

Now compare my press release to Disguise's press release (http://disguise.com/html/discontinued.html).
Wow, you're really making this company out to be some evil-minded Asian conspirator or something. It didn't seem self-congratulatory to me at all. Given, it wasn't kissing any ass or being overly sorry, but I don't want some stupid company acting all sorry and then turning around not giving a shit, either. You won, remember? They pulled the costume off their shelves. Do you expect them to be happy about this?
No, I'm making them out to be a company that's more concerned with covering their derriere than with doing the right thing. I suppose we've become accustomed to such conduct from corporations, especially over the past year, but having learned some pretty hard lessons on Wall Street, I think we should all be aiming for a higher standard now.

You didn't respond to my hypothetical. Would you find my statement after the car accident fully acceptable, and welcome me back onto the road? If not, how is Disguise's statement any different? (I know you didn't find the costume very offensive in the first place -- let's agree to disagree on that point, seeing that the question at hand is whether those who were offended by the costume should be satisfied by Disguise's press statement -- and focus on the contents of the two statements.)

Finally, I'm not asking them to "act all sorry." In fact, that is what I am accusing them of doing. And my suggestion is quite the opposite of allowing them to "turn[] around [and] not give a shit." I think I have made it perfectly clear that they should have taken affirmative steps to ensure that they will not produce other offensive designs in the future, such as educating their creative staff about the harmful effects of stereotyping, so that in future they will "give a shit."

By the way, this isn't the first time (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/10/17/BU168521.DTL&type=business) Disguise has been pressured by activists to recall an offensive costume (the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill ran a campaign in 2001), so this action provides no assurance that it won't happen again.
You said so yourself, that this company has had these problems before and this probably won't stop them from doing it again. Would you rather have them promise to try when they probably won't?

And your hypothetical is a little different than this situation. If you're driving 90mph down the left side of the street, you're probably TRYING to hurt somebody or yourself. I don't think that was the case with this company. In your hypothetical, you were breaking laws, lots of them. This company... wasn't.

Like I said before, you guys won, remember? Does the bad guy really have to apologize and kiss ass? I'm 100% certain that the company is upset that they had to pull the costume, especially if they saw it in good humor as something that wasn't meant to be racist. Don't expect them to be willing to follow your every demand. Is it too much of a compromise to have the costume pulled, but not have your ass kissed? (No sarcasm intended. I'm being totally serious.)

Andrew

10-22-2002, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 22 2002, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 22 2002, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 22 2002, 02:59 AM

Suppose I drive down the left side of the highway at 90 miles an hour and kill someone, then issue a statement saying, "Andrew is a safe driver. It was never Andrew's intention to injure anyone. Andrew apologizes to anyone who may have been hurt or killed. Today he removed his car from the left lane of the highway. Andrew continues to drive more than 25,000 miles a year on America's highways."

Assuming that I am going to continue driving on America's highways, wouldn't you want my statement, at the very least, to acknowledge that I now realize that I was driving unsafely and am taking steps to become a safer driver?

Now compare my press release to Disguise's press release (http://disguise.com/html/discontinued.html).
Would you find my statement after the car accident fully acceptable, and welcome me back onto the road? If not, how is Disguise's statement any different? (I know you didn't find the costume very offensive in the first place -- let's agree to disagree on that point, seeing that the question at hand is whether those who were offended by the costume should be satisfied by Disguise's press statement -- and focus on the contents of the two statements.)

By the way, this isn't the first time (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/10/17/BU168521.DTL&type=business) Disguise has been pressured by activists to recall an offensive costume (the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill ran a campaign in 2001), so this action provides no assurance that it won't happen again.
You said so yourself, that this company has had these problems before and this probably won't stop them from doing it again. Would you rather have them promise to try when they probably won't?

And your hypothetical is a little different than this situation. If you're driving 90mph down the left side of the street, you're probably TRYING to hurt somebody or yourself. I don't think that was the case with this company. In your hypothetical, you were breaking laws, lots of them. This company... wasn't.

Like I said before, you guys won, remember? Does the bad guy really have to apologize and kiss ass? I'm 100% certain that the company is upset that they had to pull the costume, especially if they saw it in good humor as something that wasn't meant to be racist. Don't expect them to be willing to follow your every demand. Is it too much of a compromise to have the costume pulled, but not have your ass kissed? (No sarcasm intended. I'm being totally serious.)
The suggestion is not to "have them promise to try," but to have them recognize the need to educate their staff about stereotypes and to implement an educational program, or take other concrete steps to ensure that this will not happen again.

I already know that you don't consider the costume as offensive as most of the petition signers did. I understand you to be saying that you think that there's room for reasonable disagreement as to whether the costume is offensive. But I also understand that most of the petition signers found the costume to be patently offensive, and that Disguise marketed the costume either knowing that it was offensive or with reckless disregard for the possibility that it was offensive. I also don't think most of the petition signers would find it plausible that Disguise may have designed the costume innocently and in good faith. In my hypothetical, I'm driving either knowingly or recklessly dangerously. So the offending act is analogous from the perspective of the petition signers.

Keep in mind that we are discussing the adequacy of the press release as a response to the petition signers, not its adequacy as a response to Sarah. Of course, I can't speak for all of the petition signers, but having read their comments on the petition, I can say with some confidence that very few if any of them viewed the costume as benignly as you have done.

Also, you didn't mention any distinction between the contents of the two statements, which I asked you to focus on, so I suppose you didn't find any.

You are continuing to labor under the misconception that I want the company to "apologize and kiss ass." I have made perfectly clear that what I want is for the company to take affirmative steps to ensure that they will not produce other offensive designs in the future. If you really don't see a difference between the two, we may as well end this discussion, because we're just talking past each other.

angel nympho

10-22-2002, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 22 2002, 04:25 PM
The suggestion is not to "have them promise to try," but to have them recognize the need to educate their staff about stereotypes and to implement an educational program, or take other concrete steps to ensure that this will not happen again.

I already know that you don't consider the costume as offensive as most of the petition signers did. I understand you to be saying that you think that there's room for reasonable disagreement as to whether the costume is offensive. But I also understand that most of the petition signers found the costume to be patently offensive, and that Disguise marketed the costume either knowing that it was offensive or with reckless disregard for the possibility that it was offensive. I also don't think most of the petition signers would find it plausible that Disguise may have designed the costume innocently and in good faith. In my hypothetical, I'm driving either knowingly or recklessly dangerously. So the offending act is analogous from the perspective of the petition signers.

Keep in mind that we are discussing the adequacy of the press release as a response to the petition signers, not its adequacy as a response to Sarah. Of course, I can't speak for all of the petition signers, but having read their comments on the petition, I can say with some confidence that very few if any of them viewed the costume as benignly as you have done.

Also, you didn't mention any distinction between the contents of the two statements, which I asked you to focus on, so I suppose you didn't find any.

You are continuing to labor under the misconception that I want the company to "apologize and kiss ass." I have made perfectly clear that what I want is for the company to take affirmative steps to ensure that they will not produce other offensive designs in the future. If you really don't see a difference between the two, we may as well end this discussion, because we're just talking past each other.
To me, "implement an educational program, or take other concrete steps to ensure that this will not happen again" and "promise to try" mean the same thing.

The company did what they needed to do for the petition signers. They took the costume off shelves. They did it peacefully, they did it promptly, and they did it without question.

I see what you mean about your hypothetical, unfortunately, I can't really answer that because I stand on a different side. To me, this situation is far from malicious intent, but I see your driving situation to be obvious malicious intent. So from the perspective of me watching you drive that car (aka, the perspective of a VERY upset petition signer), I'd think NOTHING was good enough. If I was the mother of the person you killed, NOTHING would be good enough for me. You could have paid your dues for what you did, you could have sent out a statement apologizing (which, by law, is not exactly necessary), you could pave my streets with gold, I wouldn't care. In the eyes of the law, you are redeemed, but I'll still think you're the basturd who killed my child. Which is exactly what I'm pointing out right now. Nothing is good enough for the people who were irate about the costume. NOTHING. But in the blind eyes of the law (aka the eyes of an outsider to the situation), what was asked for was done. Nothing more, nothing less. And yes, I do consider myself blind in this situation, because, keep in mind, I am not SIDING with Disguise, I'm just not siding with you. Objectively, I see that what they did was objectable, they needed to do something about it, and they did. Just because their apology doesn't sound good enough to you doesn't mean they didn't meet the requirements asked of them. Is that enough to quell your curiousity about the distinction between the contents of the two statements?

I DO see the difference between kissing ass and taking steps to ensure that they won't do it again. But I don't encourage lying on the part of the company. I, personally, don't think Disguise Inc is going to take steps to ensure it won't happen again, and I wouldn't appreciate them saying they will and having another episode like this come up. I think it's enough that they did what they were asked to do, and even if it isn't adequate as a personal response to every single person on the petition, it's adequate. They did what they were told to do, they weren't asked to do it with emotion.

Todos Personas

10-22-2002, 11:19 AM

It may interest you to know that Disguise has not only had internal conversations with their design dept., but they have also reveiwed several other costumes slated for future release. According to an inside source...! :ph34r:

Perhaps the verbage wasn't exactly how you would have liked, but what in this world is exactly how you want it, unless you do it yourself? And even then... I don't like to think of it as settling... maybe compromising? How did that Stones song go... "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find... you get what you need."

Ultimately, they want to hock their costumes to you, your family, and everyone else in the world. Because of that, they will do everything in their power (within reason!) to make sure that everyone is happy. Maybe they DID apologize/recall the costume for the wrong reasons. Maybe in addition to the monetary issue, they were honestly remorseful. Would you ever know for sure? Even if the spokesperson had expressed the specific sentiment you were looking for, would you have believed it, or written it off as corporate rhetoric?

dreamychoconat

10-22-2002, 11:41 AM

I was looking at this advertisement for "Party City" that I recieved in the mail, and I noticed that they advertised the "Kung Fool" costume in their ads :pissed: , the teen section, so I just wanted to imform you guys about that.

Todos Personas

10-22-2002, 01:15 PM

I am guessing that these ads have been planned/placed long before the "Anti-Disguise" campaign, as y'all have so eloquently put it.

If total eradication of the Kung Fool costume and all aspects of its existence must be achieved, we are going to need to start from the beginning, at it's moment of conception.

You work on the time machine; I'll start working on a mind-erasing laser.

mrazntre

10-22-2002, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Todos Personas@Oct 22 2002, 09:15 PM
I am guessing that these ads have been planned/placed long before the "Anti-Disguise" campaign, as y'all have so eloquently put it.

If total eradication of the Kung Fool costume and all aspects of its existence must be achieved, we are going to need to start from the beginning, at it's moment of conception.

You work on the time machine; I'll start working on a mind-erasing laser.
The eradication of all the aspects of the "kung fool" costume is not as patronizing as you have seemingly made apparent. It is not the single release of one offensive product, but it is rather the prejudice and insensitive nature that has been taken to become the norm in society today while in the "creative stage" during the creation of that product. Total eradication does not mean traveling back in time, yet it is the education of the masses in instilling moral, humane, and culturally sensitive thinking. Eradication of such racism begins with the conversion of one person to understand the offensive nature of being insensitive towards minorities, and feeling offended themselves by such blatant acts of bigotry.

angel nympho

10-22-2002, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by mrazntre@Oct 23 2002, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Todos Personas@Oct 22 2002, 09:15 PM
I am guessing that these ads have been planned/placed long before the "Anti-Disguise" campaign, as y'all have so eloquently put it.

If total eradication of the Kung Fool costume and all aspects of its existence must be achieved, we are going to need to start from the beginning, at it's moment of conception.

You work on the time machine; I'll start working on a mind-erasing laser.
The eradication of all the aspects of the "kung fool" costume is not as patronizing as you have seemingly made apparent. It is not the single release of one offensive product, but it is rather the prejudice and insensitive nature that has been taken to become the norm in society today while in the "creative stage" during the creation of that product. Total eradication does not mean traveling back in time, yet it is the education of the masses in instilling moral, humane, and culturally sensitive thinking. Eradication of such racism begins with the conversion of one person to understand the offensive nature of being insensitive towards minorities, and feeling offended themselves by such blatant acts of bigotry.
He's talking about getting rid of all traces of the costume, not ridding the world of racism. At least, I don't think he is...

mrazntre

10-22-2002, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 23 2002, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by mrazntre@Oct 23 2002, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Todos Personas@Oct 22 2002, 09:15 PM
I am guessing that these ads have been planned/placed long before the "Anti-Disguise" campaign, as y'all have so eloquently put it.

If total eradication of the Kung Fool costume and all aspects of its existence must be achieved, we are going to need to start from the beginning, at it's moment of conception.

You work on the time machine; I'll start working on a mind-erasing laser.
The eradication of all the aspects of the "kung fool" costume is not as patronizing as you have seemingly made apparent. It is not the single release of one offensive product, but it is rather the prejudice and insensitive nature that has been taken to become the norm in society today while in the "creative stage" during the creation of that product. Total eradication does not mean traveling back in time, yet it is the education of the masses in instilling moral, humane, and culturally sensitive thinking. Eradication of such racism begins with the conversion of one person to understand the offensive nature of being insensitive towards minorities, and feeling offended themselves by such blatant acts of bigotry.
He's talking about getting rid of all traces of the costume, not ridding the world of racism. At least, I don't think he is...
Right.

But where does the costume stem from?

The costume is not an isolated occurence. Do you think that just this one act has no affect on any other aspect in society? Do you live in a vacuum that I don't know about?

Maybe we should hold a special seminar, "acts of racism are not intertwined."

The only way to eradicate every trace of the costume is not via a narrow-minded approach. Rather, it must incorporate the continual education of minority sensitivity because it did not begin with the costume. And it will not end with the recall of the costume.

achtungbaby

10-22-2002, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by mrazntre@Oct 22 2002, 05:00 PM
The only way to eradicate every trace of the costume is not via a narrow-minded approach. Rather, it must incorporate the continual education of minority sensitivity because it did not begin with the costume. And it will not end with the recall of the costume.
Well said.

Todos Personas

10-22-2002, 05:16 PM

Nicely said.

Well, you see, I am at a definite disadvantage when trying to empathize with the plight of minorities. Although technically, I am more Arabic (which is not a popular culture these days) than white, no one would ever know it, if I did not tell them. I just haven't had any great personal difficulties because of my race or outward appearance. Sure, people have made MANY derogatory comments in front of me about Middle Eastern people and white people as well. I just seem to only internalize and/or care about those things that I find value in, and as for the rest, what do I care, as long as it doesn't affect my way of life, which so far it hasn't. Maybe you have had to experience adverse situations, which have made something such as a Kung Fool costume offensive to you. I am sure that is true for many others. My brushes with bigotry have, however, not left those scars.

Does the fact that 2 Asians came up with the idea and design, and that another person, 1/4 Asian, did the actual construction of the prototype of the costume, mean anything to you? Or have these particular Asians, and others who may have chosen not to sign your petition for whatever reason, become too deluded by the white, capitalist cloud that hangs over this country, to realize what they are encouraging? Forgive me for saying this, I am not trying to be insulting, but perhaps you (and many others) are just way over-sensitive and need to not take everything so seriously, assigning motives and meanings that just aren't rational and/or intentional.

In my very first post on this site, I tried to make it clear that I have no problem with the actions that have been taken by you folks. If anyone has a problem with anything, protest! You protested, were able to get your message out (somewhat), and the results seem to be in your favor, to me anyway.
Do you feel as though you have accomplished what you wanted to with "Project Anti-Disguise"? I don't sense satisfaction, but when I think about it, I feel as though you accomplished quite alot; you have to be proud of the outcome, don't you?

I suppose I am of the opinion that it was never possible for "Project Anti-Disguise" to be 100% satisfied. But, who ever is?

Todos Personas

10-22-2002, 05:20 PM

...and yes, I was just talking about the costume.

Sorry, sarcasm has been my favorite tool for a long time. It's a tough habit to break.

kasia

10-22-2002, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 21 2002, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 21 2002, 11:19 PM
they did acknowledge that it was offensive--even on national television.

they didn't do the whole, "we are very very very very sorry" thing like abercrombie. i dealt with these people personally and was able to recognize that they made a good faith effort to resolve the situation and comply with our demands
Thanks, you answered my original question. I gather then that the TV statement was more fully developed than the press release on their Web site, which basically pats themselves on the back ("We are a culturally sensitive company") and suggests that Asian Americans voluntarily chose to be offended by the costume ("It was not our intention to offend anyone"). This is a cop-out. Either this "culturally sensitive" company knowingly marketed a costume they actually believed was offensive, or they didn't actually believe the costume was offensive and are just humoring us. For those of us not in San Diego, can you tell us what they said on TV that went beyond their press release?

The statements I've read from Abercrombie have been pretty minimalist ("We didn't intend to offend anyone and will be removing the shirts from our stores."). What Abercrombie statement are you referring to?
the statement on their page which made the press on wednesday was made *before* our negotiations on thursday--where we basically told them that whatever they said before was not enough. hope that clears things up.

as for a&f, i was referring to the statement made by their spokesperson on the day the shirts were pulled. "we are very very very very sorry." i may have left a "very" out. sorry :)

achtungbaby

10-22-2002, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Todos Personas@Oct 22 2002, 05:16 PM
Or have these particular Asians, and others who may have chosen not to sign your petition for whatever reason, become too deluded by the white, capitalist cloud that hangs over this country, to realize what they are encouraging?
Nicely put!:)

Todos Personas

10-22-2002, 06:55 PM

I was hoping you'd like that! :)

Agree or not, I like to understand.

Peace.

Andrew

10-22-2002, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 23 2002, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 21 2002, 11:57 PM

For those of us not in San Diego, can you tell us what they said on TV that went beyond their press release?

the statement on their page which made the press on wednesday was made *before* our negotiations on thursday--where we basically told them that whatever they said before was not enough. hope that clears things up.

What did they add to the press release that satisfied you? I don't live in San Diego, so all I've heard from them is their press release on the Web site and the portions thereof that have been quoted in the news articles that are online. It would be nice if they updated the press release on the Web site to reflect your negotiations, since this wasn't just a local San Diego campaign.

kasia

10-22-2002, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 23 2002, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 23 2002, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 21 2002, 11:57 PM

For those of us not in San Diego, can you tell us what they said on TV that went beyond their press release?

the statement on their page which made the press on wednesday was made *before* our negotiations on thursday--where we basically told them that whatever they said before was not enough. hope that clears things up.

What did they add to the press release that satisfied you? I don't live in San Diego, so all I've heard from them is their press release on the Web site and the portions thereof that have been quoted in the news articles that are online. It would be nice if they updated the press release on the Web site to reflect your negotiations, since this wasn't just a local San Diego campaign.
true. however, it wasn't part of any of our demands that they put anything up on their website at all.

the main thing we weren't satisfied with was the fact that the first press release only stated that they were "willing to accept returns". after our final negotiations, we were able to have them send letters to each retailer requesting that the items be pulled by friday and returned to them for credit.

i thought our latest updates caught everything. let me check.

btw, were you able to make it to any of the party city's or walmarts in your town?

Andrew

10-22-2002, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 23 2002, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 23 2002, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 23 2002, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 21 2002, 11:57 PM

For those of us not in San Diego, can you tell us what they said on TV that went beyond their press release?

the statement on their page which made the press on wednesday was made *before* our negotiations on thursday--where we basically told them that whatever they said before was not enough. hope that clears things up.

What did they add to the press release that satisfied you? I don't live in San Diego, so all I've heard from them is their press release on the Web site and the portions thereof that have been quoted in the news articles that are online. It would be nice if they updated the press release on the Web site to reflect your negotiations, since this wasn't just a local San Diego campaign.
true. however, it wasn't part of any of our demands that they put anything up on their website at all.

the main thing we weren't satisfied with was the fact that the first press release only stated that they were "willing to accept returns". after our final negotiations, we were able to have them send letters to each retailer requesting that the items be pulled by friday and returned to them for credit.

i thought our latest updates caught everything. let me check.

btw, were you able to make it to any of the party city's or walmarts in your town?
Sorry, I live out in the boonies. Nearest Walmart is 27 miles away. We have a Target, though.