Petitioners call "Big Indian" car dealer sign racist

boing
88

There were minstrel elements in both Jeeves and Wooster and in Little Britain-- and as a American, I was just puzzled. But now I know.

89
1 Like
90

But in this case (and unlike the other examples you provided) the character’s ethnicity is its only defining attribute. It’s even called “The Big Indian.” Imagine if, instead of a caricature of a Native American, this car dealership was known for “The Big Chinaman” or “The Big Black Guy.”

5 Likes
91

Really Loving the number of posters here in one way or another invoking the “But everyone does it” defence.

Hearkens me back to the 7th grade when I was among people who found that an acceptable argument. “Jake punched that fat kid in the eye for being so fat!” “Yeah, don’t worry about that, everyone does it, he’s used to it, he even says it’s okay if you ask him. Ball up your fist and he gives you his money.”

3 Likes
92

i grew up in memphis, which is majority black; all my black friends self-identified as black, and all my indian friends self-identified as indian, whether they were from north american tribal descent or sikhs-- meaning context was required, but confusion never arose.

all that to say that coming up in the 70s, i lived through “amerindian” and “afro-american” and watched both of those terms fail to catch on. black was beautiful throughout. the american indian movement still exists (AIM). so why are we still encumbered with _____ American?

whenever i see ______American, i assume the words belong to well-meaning white people, and not the party or parties who may well have a serious complaint, and it makes me look askance at the complaint itself. black people, tell me to stop saying black, and i will; indians, tell me we can’t call ourselves that anymore, and i’ll stop.

93

Didn’t you hear? The Klan is no longer a racist organization. They’re putting all that behind them.

94

Of course, if people are offended, there’s no point in trying to argue them out of it, but… am I the only one who noticed that the “Big Indian” seems to be a Sheriff? I gotta give them at least a few points for that! (Or am I missing some cultural stereotype that also involves Native Americans wearing stars on their vests?)

1 Like
95

I wonder how many of the people offended are actually Native Americans?

I’m left handed…and “Left Handed” is used casually in a negative way such as a phrase “left handed compliment” without second thought by people in their right mind. But I never hear anyone be offended by that…myself included.

Should I be offend? And why or why not?

1 Like
96

OMG He Killed the Sheriff and took a trophy!

97

I am genuinely curious, are you just trying to take the piss out if me?

98

I have honestly never heard that phrase. Maybe it’s a corruption of “backhanded compliment”?

Of course, you are sinister :wink:

2 Likes
99

Unlike Dexter, of course.

2 Likes
100

No, I’m just pointing out that the comparison of the KKK to the late 20th Century Republican Party is not as totally without basis as you seem to think. I mean, look at Ron Paul’s newsletters, Strom Thurmond, David Duke, and so on.

But even if you don’t accept that, look at pure numbers. Even in 2012, only 2% of the RNC’s delegates were black, compared to 26.2% of delegates to the Democrats’ convention. So it’s not statistically unreasonable to express surprise on encountering a black Republican.

5 Likes
101

But if the artist is not a member of the portrayed group (and a politically aware and activist member of said group), before drawing they must convene a diverse panel of members of the group portrayed, present to them the details of how the group members will be portrayed (including all physical, intellectual, moral and political characteristics) for approval. Any changes requested must be made without argument or discussion, as the artist has no ethical right to disagree.

In the event that any member of the portrayed group feels offended at any time, all remaining copies of the work shall be immediately destroyed, and the artist will be immediately publicly humiliated and lambasted in the usual fashion, their career ended, and their legacy tainted.

Now, let that creativity flow!

PS: these rules shall not apply to portrayals of the dominant cultural group.

1 Like
102

Without wanting to cause an argument, why not?

103

Posters here bring up a good point…the entire Pontiac brand is racist. How can Pontiacs be allowed to drive freely about and be featured in museums and collector garages? And if the cars themselves and the ephemera surrounding them is to be exempt, why? The Internet should rise up in outrage and shame and vilify those subhuman trolls who drive around in classic Pontiacs, or trade in Pontiac collectibles. They are no different from the evil capitalist racist who inherited this sign and refuses to remove it.

104

Because that’s the way sarcasm rolls.

2 Likes
105

As a white guy who went to Oxford MS for the first time this year, I have to agree entirely. I also prefer it over Boston racism, because it’s much easier to spot the bigots and avoid them, and a lot easier to get along with right minded people!

Also, Tolerant Oregon.

107

Pontiac as a brand is certainly an example of cultural appropriation & thus inherently racist.

But it is not a difference without some distinction. The cartoonish caricature that is the thread subject isn’t actually a GM trademarked image as far as I can see. GM did select (appropriate) the name of their product, for the stated reasons in the “justification” provided by the carlot ower where the cartoon indian sign is, but largely depicted Pontiac as something akin to why it was selected. Look at the pictures of the original branding, then the subsequent branding when the headdress was dropped in the 1950’s, which later became the simple red arrow that is associated with the brand today.

I posted earlier that the “justification/excuse” the dealer gave was bunk, that the sign was likely not in fact something GM would claim or ever did. That doesn’t mean they are not somehow responsible for every act of their independent dealers, but it does mean they probably would not stand by this dealer in their claim that they are keeping the sign because of the GM/history/we don’t think it offends you excuse provided.

edit - in case it isn’t clear, I find cultural appropriation to be wrong, but criticize any suggestion that one thing ought not be done because some other thing isn’t. (Why should I stop wearing blackface if absolutely everyone isn’t willing to give up Aunt Jemima pancake syrup? is a good analogue)

2 Likes
108

Someone above said “Just because something is ethnic does not mean it is racist”

Intent matters. The artist trapped by PC bureaucracy in your post for instance, was it a commercial artist? Because the sign makers artist probably was, given that the sign produced was for commercial purposes.

Artistic depictions that further stereotypes, condescend, patronize or outright insult various groups for money are often considered more offensive than depictions created as individual expression.

Yes, I am aware that both types of artists, commercial and non-commercial, accept money for their works, pointing that out to me does not in any way refute the difference in intent specified.