West Coast's 'Yellow Peril'

[Sweet Jesus]

Queer and the N-word have been reclaimed in different ways by different communities. Yellow Peril was being repurposed for a different use.

These are not analogous in any meaningful way.

The word queer and the n-word were reclaimed by those out groups who were slurred by those words. It was done with the history of those slurs very much in mind. It was a conscious, broad-based, grassroots effort to neutralise and even subvert the negative power of those words.

WC, however, were doing no such thing with the use of Yellow Peril. They simply committed a branding gaffe, while being apparently oblivious to the history of the phrase. There's no broad shift occurring here. It's one club making an ahistorical error of judgement.

To suggest some kind of equivalency between these scenarios is absurd.

Believe me, you got your desired outcome (the apology and retraction from West Coast) but if you've ever had a conversation with people in business about how they have to pander to a perpetually outraged minority, you'd know that they detest it and bemoan the ignorance displayed by such a group that refuses to acknowledge the intent behind the use of the term or the modern context of the term.

So be it.

They should use better judgement in the first place and then they won't have to apologise to anyone.

Avoiding the use of an indisputably racist phrase in marketing material really is a no-brainer. It's not that hard to get this one right.

Yes in 1895 Yellow Peril was coined as a racist phrase to foment a vehement fear of the East Asian people. It has now been repurposed, in a way more appropriate to the definition of the two words than Wilhelm II's use. At least the wavelength of the light reflected by the majority of the guernsey is actually between 560nm to 590nm, unlike that from the skin of those from countries in East Asia.

The phrase have never been repurposed in any way that is cognisant of the history attached to it. There's been no broad shift in the meaning. The racist etymology remains very much intact. A football club simply committed a branding error, which they've now acknowledged.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

See the thing that ruins the whole scaremongering argument is that it actually happened! Tragically for us and so many of our asian neighbours, sometimes the bogeyman is real.

Considering the atrocities committed by Imperial Japan against our men and women, and their difficulties in admitting them, I think we've moved on very well, the purely ironic use of a term like 'yellow peril' is a good and healthy indicator of this, because it does take time.

I remember when I did my first student exchange to Japan in highschool (early 90s) my Grandma asked why on earth I would want to do that, her depth of negative feeling shocked me, but then id only known japan as nintendos and toyotas. later after she met a few students who stayed with us she was much better.

The "Yellow Peril" scare campaign was in response to Chinese migration, not Japanese.

 

[Sando22]

What a massive beat-up

 

[Jade]

It's the salient point which none of naysayers seem to want to answer despite dozens of pages of debate.

Why the term "yellow peril"?

I'm not even talking about "the marketing kid" (lol), just the jumper being called that in general. Why the "yellow peril"? Why not "yellow <whatever>"?

Did someone just look at the jumper and come up with "the yellow peril"?

Since nobody wants to answer, I will myself:

Of course they ****in didn't.

They heard the term somewhere and applied it to this. They didn't magically invent the term "yellow peril" by complete coincidence.

There's your answer. It's a nickname, which is a direct reference to a term steeped in racism.

That's just the facts of the matter. That's what it is. Did the users of the term know? It doesn't really matter. People still can't get past the "I didn't mean it" thing on racial issue.

It's a direct adoption of an incredibly racist historical phrase, and thus is wildly inappropriate. West Coast obviously know this and apologised. Done.

They don't need to get into arguments about not meaning to cast a slight on Asian people, that goes without saying. Of course they didn't.

Doesn't mean they'll keep doing it.

Where you run into trouble is when you have people who when faced with the above facts, (a) try to simply ignore the history as though it never happened - strange, or (b) try some sort of weird fight for their right to continue to use it - "we didn't mean that so its all fine, get over it".

I'm genuinely in two minds about this.

I had a debate/discussion with a friend at work a few weeks ago after those couple of guys dressed up as aboriginals (and were in black face) for their footy club presentation night.

He was adamant that they clearly didn't know it was racist, clearly didn't intend for it to be racist and in fact it looked like they were attempting to be respectful of Indigenous culture (despite failing in the attempt).

I had to explain to him what blackface actually was, why it is so inherently racist and why, despite the obvious non-intent of the guys involved, it can't be done. Having said that, the lack of intent meant that in my opinion, the guys in question only needed to be politely told not to do it again, and leave it at that.

And yet with this one, my immediate reaction was something akin to 'oh for **** sake, you've got to be joking - harden the **** up'.

So why the obvious hypocrisy?

I suppose the difference for me was that one was 'real' and present, and the other (yellow peril) was so generationally removed as to have lost any racial connection at all. I mean, I'm a reasonable well read guy, and upon seeing the headline for the story I actually had to google 'yellow peril' because I didn't have the faintest idea what could be racist about it.

I mean, isn't that a win against racism? The term had lost all meaning and most (granted not all) had to actually look it up to understand it's origins.

You are correct in that 'yellow peril' was obviously chosen because as a term it had been used before, so in a way it rolled off the tongue, somewhat familiar.

I concede that West Coast can't use it anymore - as does West Coast.

But geezus, can we not be so bloody offended at every ****ing thing?

I say with all sincerity that whether or not someone is offended by something is totally irrelevant to my actions. Because being offended is an utterly pointless state to be in - I don't really care if you're offended.

 

[javaguice]

The "Yellow Peril" scare campaign was in response to Chinese migration, not Japanese.

Germans used it first in reference to Chinese and Japanese

 

[JackOutback]

I'm genuinely in two minds about this.

I had a debate/discussion with a friend at work a few weeks ago after those couple of guys dressed up as aboriginals (and were in black face) for their footy club presentation night.

He was adamant that they clearly didn't know it was racist, clearly didn't intend for it to be racist and in fact it looked like they were attempting to be respectful of Indigenous culture (despite failing in the attempt).

I had to explain to him what blackface actually was, why it is so inherently racist and why, despite the obvious non-intent of the guys involved, it can't be done. Having said that, the lack of intent meant that in my opinion, the guys in question only needed to be politely told not to do it again, and leave it at that.

And yet with this one, my immediate reaction was something akin to 'oh for **** sake, you've got to be joking - harden the **** up'.

So why the obvious hypocrisy?

I suppose the difference for me was that one was 'real' and present, and the other (yellow peril) was so generationally removed as to have lost any racial connection at all. I mean, I'm a reasonable well read guy, and upon seeing the headline for the story I actually had to google 'yellow peril' because I didn't have the faintest idea what could be racist about it.

I mean, isn't that a win against racism? The term had lost all meaning and most (granted not all) had to actually look it up to understand it's origins.

You are correct in that 'yellow peril' was obviously chosen because as a term it had been used before, so in a way it rolled off the tongue, somewhat familiar.

I concede that West Coast can't use it anymore - as does West Coast.

But geezus, can we not be so bloody offended at every ******* thing?

I say with all sincerity that whether or not someone is offended by something is totally irrelevant to my actions. Because being offended is an utterly pointless state to be in - I don't really care if you're offended.

One point I would make is that Yellow Peril was used as recently as the '70s and even early '80s against migration following the Vietnam War. It has a far more recent context than blackface.

That said, it's obviously less well known than blackface, which could be seen as a win for attitudes towards Asian immigration. But I still wouldn't use it, particularly when it's so unnecessary.

 

[momentbymoment]

I do. And so do you.

Whether or not you're offended by something is your problem, not mine though.

Being offended by something isn't some sort of crippling disease. When it's very, very clearly not meant, or even remotely considered, to be racist - people need to harden the **** up and move on.

And yet - everyone was so offended when Adam Goodes called Australia Day - invasion day. That's when the tough men of the AFL turned into sooks and booed him like a child. The lack of empathy on this thread is scaey.

 

[Jade]

And yet - everyone was so offended when Adam Goodes called Australia Day - invasion day. That's when the tough men of the AFL turned into sooks and booed him like a child. The lack of empathy on this thread is scaey.

I've had some long discussions re: Goodes.

The booing started not because he's indigenous, but because he's a flog.

Unfortunately it quickly, and undeniably, turned in to a racist thing; at which point it had to stop.

 

[Podsnap]

Most of whom don't give a **** in the slightest.

I don't anyone has yet found a single Chinese person who has been offended

Why should we bother with $500m plebiscites when we have you?

 

[The_Reaper]

Why should we bother with $500m plebiscites when we have you?

or people like you to tell us what we're all offended by

 

[Podsnap]

I didn't we we are all offended. I'm pointing out why it is offensive.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

And yet with this one, my immediate reaction was something akin to 'oh for **** sake, you've got to be joking - harden the **** up'.

So why the obvious hypocrisy?

I suppose the difference for me was that one was 'real' and present, and the other (yellow peril) was so generationally removed as to have lost any racial connection at all. I mean, I'm a reasonable well read guy, and upon seeing the headline for the story I actually had to google 'yellow peril' because I didn't have the faintest idea what could be racist about it.
I concede that West Coast can't use it anymore - as does West Coast.

But geezus, can we not be so bloody offended at every ******* thing?

I say with all sincerity that whether or not someone is offended by something is totally irrelevant to my actions. Because being offended is an utterly pointless state to be in - I don't really care if you're offended.

I agree with your comments about blackface but I think some of your assumptions about Yellow Peril should be reconsidered.

The fact that you didn't know what Yellow Peril meant doesn't alter the fact that the phrase is racist in origin. It is. Indisputably. You not knowing about it is neither here nor there.

You mention the guys who dressed up in blackface and say they didn't know and probably just needed to be told. The same is true with Yellow Peril. You didn't know about its racist origin – but now you do. The fact that you didn't know doesn't mean the phrase isn't racist in origin – just as not knowing about blackface doesn't make it not racist.

I'm happy to give people the benefit of the doubt if they say they didn't know but once people have had the racist implications explained to them, ignorance is no longer a defence.

You say that the meaning is 'generationally removed' and that's true. But again, it doesn't change the fact that the phrase is racist in origin.

You also rail against this culture of people being determined to 'be offended' by anything and everything. And I agree with that to an extent. Claiming to 'be offended' is, in my mind, quite meaningless.

So for me, the issue with Yellow Peril isn't about 'being offended'. It's about judgement. Should a football club be using a phrase that is indisputably racist in origin – even if some people didn't know that to be the case – in its marketing material? No, they shouldn't. And I don't think that's a particularly hard call to make.

I say with all sincerity that whether or not someone is offended by something is totally irrelevant to my actions. Because being offended is an utterly pointless state to be in - I don't really care if you're offended.

This is unrelated to Yellow Peril but surely there are some instances where you would comply with cultural sensitivities out of good manners.

I mean, if you visited a Buddhist temple where they asked you not to wear thongs or use flash photography, would you disregard that request?

In aboriginal culture, there is a taboo around showing photographs or film of people who have died. On TV, you'll sometimes see a warning to indigenous viewers if images like that are about to be shown. That costs us very little to do that. Isn't it better to make that small accommodation than simply saying 'I don't care if you're offended'?

Broadly, though, I agree with you. But it's not an absolute. If you walk into someone's house, spit on their floor and immediately declare 'I don't care if you're offended', you're kind of an arseh*le. Right?

 

[javaguice]

I didn't we we are all offended. I'm pointing out why it is offensive.

Were you offended or aware it was offensive prior to the article? Majority wouldn't have known it was previously a derogatory term until Ivan milat wrote the article. Had he not, this many people wouldn't be offended because they wouldn't have been told to be offended unless for the article.

 

[crippton09]

Really it's like banning the word black from the English language because it has been used to racially vilify people before. Obviously it was never meant to be delivered that way. Get over it.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Really it's like banning the word black from the English language because it has been used to racially vilify people before.

No. It isn't.

The phrase Yellow Peril is racist in its origin and has no other benign, common use meaning.

It's striking how many clunkingly stupid analogies have been presented in this thread by people arguing that racist language isn't actually racist. It's like they want to continue using racist language and need to tie themselves in knots to justify doing so.

 

[Podsnap]

Were you offended or aware it was offensive prior to the article? Majority wouldn't have known it was previously a derogatory term until Ivan milat wrote the article. Had he not, this many people wouldn't be offended because they wouldn't have been told to be offended unless for the article.

I've read the term before but it didn't click until I'd already read through a few other articles on the page. Thats when I decided to read the Milat article. That could be more of an indictment on the education system - I don't think it was a featured part of my highschool history classes and I think something that shaped political policies for a hundred years very much should be.

I can understand how people can be offended by it and if it was only a minority who was offended then I'm very glad it was highlighted so the majority can be made aware of the history. It doesn't go away or stop being offensive because people are ignorant of the history or apathetic. Apart from blaming the work experience kid WCE handled it appropriately (and shouldn't be crucified for using it - clearly someone in marking wasn't aware either)

 

[Jade]

This is unrelated to Yellow Peril but surely there are some instances where you would comply with cultural sensitivities out of good manners.

Absolutely I would! But I do so because I WANT to be polite, to be considerate. If I STILL offend someone, too ****ing bad.

Not caring whether someone is offended =/= just want to be a prick for the sake of it.

I mean, if you visited a Buddhist temple where they asked you not to wear thongs or use flash photography, would you disregard that request?

In aboriginal culture, there is a taboo around showing photographs or film of people who have died. On TV, you'll sometimes see a warning to indigenous viewers if images like that are about to be shown. That costs us very little to do that. Isn't it better to make that small accommodation than simply saying 'I don't care if you're offended'?

Sure.

Broadly, though, I agree with you. But it's not an absolute. If you walk into someone's house, spit on their floor and immediately declare 'I don't care if you're offended', you're kind of an arseh*le. Right?

Precisely.

I act (or at least I try) in a way that is polite and courteous to those around me, including being as aware as I can of cultural sensitivities.

However, if I act in a way that aligns with my own personal moral standing, what I construe as 'good' and 'decent' behaviour, and someone is still offended? Couldn't give less of a ****.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I've had some long discussions re: Goodes.

The booing started not because he's indigenous, but because he's a flog.

Unfortunately it quickly, and undeniably, turned in to a racist thing; at which point it had to stop.

Nope.

It started because he’s an indigenous flog. Big difference.

He was booed simply because he’s a flog? Give me a spell. Every second player would be booed mercilessly. They’re not.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Absolutely I would! But I do so because I WANT to be polite, to be considerate. If I STILL offend someone, too ******* bad.

Really? If you inadvertently offended someone for avoidable reasons, you wouldn't regret it?

I act (or at least I try) in a way that is polite and courteous to those around me, including being as aware as I can of cultural sensitivities.

However, if I act in a way that aligns with my own personal moral standing, what I construe as 'good' and 'decent' behaviour, and someone is still offended? Couldn't give less of a ****.

So what if there was a cultural sensitivity that you didn't know about and unknowingly transgressed? Would you still not give a shit?

That doesn't seem very polite or courteous.

When you travel overseas, you might easily find yourself in this situation without knowing it.

The world doesn't calibrate itself according to what you know or don't know.

 

[Jade]

Nope.

It started because he’s an indigenous flog. Big difference.

He was booed simply because he’s a flog? Give me a spell. Every second player would be booed mercilessly. They’re not.

Nah.

As I said, I have absolutely no doubt that after the first or second instance, it was very much a racially motivated thing. Not a doubt at all in my mind.

But it started because he's just such a monumental flog.

Was Watson booed for his skin colour?

Was Ryder for that matter?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I'm genuinely in two minds about this.

I had a debate/discussion with a friend at work a few weeks ago after those couple of guys dressed up as aboriginals (and were in black face) for their footy club presentation night.

He was adamant that they clearly didn't know it was racist, clearly didn't intend for it to be racist and in fact it looked like they were attempting to be respectful of Indigenous culture (despite failing in the attempt).

I had to explain to him what blackface actually was, why it is so inherently racist and why, despite the obvious non-intent of the guys involved, it can't be done. Having said that, the lack of intent meant that in my opinion, the guys in question only needed to be politely told not to do it again, and leave it at that.

And yet with this one, my immediate reaction was something akin to 'oh for **** sake, you've got to be joking - harden the **** up'.

So why the obvious hypocrisy?

I suppose the difference for me was that one was 'real' and present, and the other (yellow peril) was so generationally removed as to have lost any racial connection at all. I mean, I'm a reasonable well read guy, and upon seeing the headline for the story I actually had to google 'yellow peril' because I didn't have the faintest idea what could be racist about it.

I mean, isn't that a win against racism? The term had lost all meaning and most (granted not all) had to actually look it up to understand it's origins.

You are correct in that 'yellow peril' was obviously chosen because as a term it had been used before, so in a way it rolled off the tongue, somewhat familiar.

I concede that West Coast can't use it anymore - as does West Coast.

But geezus, can we not be so bloody offended at every ******* thing?

I say with all sincerity that whether or not someone is offended by something is totally irrelevant to my actions. Because being offended is an utterly pointless state to be in - I don't really care if you're offended.

I just can't believe what a direct reference it is to a blatantly racist phrase. Like, it not even a play on words or anything that could be explained as a bad joke. It's just a direct adoption of a very racist phrase. I couldn't believe it.

As for being so offended, I genuinely don't think it starts out that way. Generally; as was the case with this, a few eyebrows will get raised. A few comments maybe. West Coast for their part acknowledged and dealt with it.

The being so bloody offended is when there people who blatantly dig their heals in and refuse to even listen to things they may not be aware of. Just cause arguments which go on and on, as is the case on the Internet. I don't know if people are actually offended, it just becomes an argument.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Germans used it first in reference to Chinese and Japanese

And Australians?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The being so bloody offended is when there people who blatantly dig their heals in and refuse to even listen to things they may not be aware of. Just cause arguments which go on and on, as is the case on the Internet. I don't know if people are actually offended, it just becomes an argument.

This is crucial.

The initial error is not actually a big deal. It was an error of judgement. WC acknowledged it, apologised and fixed it. That's appropriate and that's the end of it as far as the club goes.

What feeds the discussion is this weird backlash against the mere acknowledgement that the phrase shouldn't have been used. It's this stubborn refusal to see that it was inappropriate and the bogus arguments marshalled in support of that view – generally based on ignorance or the desire to continue using racist phrases, even after the racist implications have been explained. That is far more disturbing than the initial use of the phrase, which I would quite willingly put down to an error of judgement that has been promptly addressed.

 

[Jade]

Really? If you inadvertently offended someone for avoidable reasons, you wouldn't regret it?

Depends on the circumstances. I'd need a specific example to which I could comment on what I would do/think in that scenario.

So what if there was a cultural sensitivity that you didn't know about and unknowingly transgressed? Would you still not give a shit?

That doesn't seem very polite or courteous.

When you travel overseas, you might easily find yourself in this situation without knowing it.

Sure. And I dare say if I was made aware of it I would probably adjust my behaviour accordingly.

In my mind I was more thinking things such as people being offended because I used a certain term (a recent example, I referred to a particularly slimy supplier as a 'bottom feeder', only to have a woman in the office wail about how offended she was).

Stuff that in my own mind strikes me as piddling and insignificant.

 

[Jade]

I just can't believe what a direct reference it is to a blatantly racist phrase. Like, it not even a play on words or anything that could be explained as a bad joke. It's just a direct adoption of a very racist phrase. I couldn't believe it.

As for being so offended, I genuinely don't think it starts out that way. Generally; as was the case with this, a few eyebrows will get raised. A few comments maybe. West Coast for their part acknowledged and dealt with it.

The being so bloody offended is when there people who blatantly dig their heals in and refuse to even listen to things they may not be aware of. Just cause arguments which go on and on, as is the case on the Internet. I don't know if people are actually offended, it just becomes an argument.

Indeed.

It is a very direct reference to a racial slur or term.

I agree that West Coast cannot use it. And you are spot on re: people arguing for the sake of it.

I actually find it to be an interesting topic.