The connected world we live in – of stereotypes and their limited range of exposure.
There has been quite some discussion around a German social bookmarking service called Mister Wong. The service is a nicely designed application and all that, but since some time some remarks are made about the icon of the company – a chinese guy hence the name Mister Wong.
The eruption came mostly from this I would say: 8 aisan:
Maybe people aren’t as sensitive to political correctness as they are here in North America. But seriously, one of their web badges has the slogan “ping pong, king kong, Mister Wong.†Which I, of course, interpret as “ching chong, Mister Wong†and get INCREDIBLY FUCKING ANGRY. It’s like Jeeves, the ask.com butler and Uncle Ben had a stereotypical illegitimate Asian son.
I don’t think I ever want to be “as sensitive as” people from the States to certain issues, the well known issues around decency for example, or just creationism.
But this takes it to a new level of what we experience with this newly connected world: I do not know what your life is about. What you care about. What is important for you. I do not walk in your shoes. Simple as that. In case of somebody living in the States and obviously having experienced a lot of stereotypes, this rings a bell with him and makes him angry. No denial on that.
But I am missing the point in this and the following discussions from there that he manages to see that there is a huge world outside, with different perceptions and memories. Which also have a reason to be there and a right. This is not a discussion about who is right or who is wrong, because life is not so simple.
Kai Tietjen, the founder of Mister Wong replied today:
As CEO and founder of Mister Wong, I feel it is my obligation to make a personal statement regarding certain allegations made about Mister Wong relaying a poor image of Asians in general.
It was never my intention, nor that of my company, to hurt anyone with the use of the illustration. We are extremely sensitive to this issue and the feelings of others. We removed the original illustration off the top of the page some time ago, when the issue first arose, in hopes that no one would be offended by it any longer. Though this was met with great disappointment from many of our users, we felt it was the right thing to do.
We consider each individual comment and suggestion made to us with all sincerity. We would like our users to feel as though they are part of our team by knowing that their opinions count. We’re a social bookmarking site that welcomes 2.5 million international visitors each month, which makes the social part very important to us.
However, certain comments have been made that I feel were below the belt, unfounded, and inappropriate. Even these we take into account, because what is first and foremost important to us, is the satisfaction of our users and that no one feel wrongfully harmed,
especially in such a manner.We welcome your opinions and are open to discussion.
The “offending” graphic for me is not that of a stereotype, but more of a play with the name. I tried to digg into what I would call a racial offensive icon and so far I would only come up with an image of a slave doing slave work and call the service Mister Nigger. That indeed would be noticeable offensive.
Or having a German person in a suit and a turkish person [Germany has a lot of turkish people] in a working suit; that would give a stereotype of superior or not. But other than that I am baffled. Yes, I am sure there are stereotypes which are in heads, but then again, how will a society evolve when you do not even want to discuss possibilities? Or explain?
Because that is part of the problem. The discussion very often goes like this
Person A: THIS IS OUTRAGOUS! OFFENDING!
Person B: hm no?
Person A: HOW DARE YOU?! EVERYBODY CAN SEE THIS?
Person B: (irritated, but seeing that person A has an issue.) sorry not to me, please explain?
at which point the discussion moves toward A telling person be not to be so stupid, because it is so clearly visible etc.
But it is not. Culture, cultural taboos, evolution of a society are not shared on a global level.
Meaning they need to be explained for me, the outsider, to even understand what your point is. Which is your duty because let’s face it: Even if I try to understand you, I do not have access to your memory.
The comment I left on Kai’s entry for context:
As most Germans, I am amazed at the comments towards Mister Wong in this regard. Once learning about them, I do understand where they come from, but there are two things which stick out for me:
This is ‘suddenly’ a world which is connected 24/7 on a global scale. There is no possible way I know about every little taboo or every little implication somewhere on the world. It is not possible to know everything anyone somewhere might feel about it, that is a work in progress which needs to be taken step by step.
At the same time I feel that this is not only in your case YOUR obligation to do something. I expect from others a bit of understanding as well. Not on the issue, but why this was done.
There is not one single way how the world ticks, there is no one single way how “the people” think, there are several different ones. And I would like to see a bit of understanding from the other side as well – instead I see a lot of hatred and a lot of “how dare they and THEY have to change everything”.
I have read some of those comments and have to say that I feel sorry for you. Some of the accusations and visible moves to rally a negative buzz around it are just horrendous to see – lead by example should apply here.
My view of this icon, which I think many do agree on over here, is that it portraits a clever person to help me on with the platform, funny and wise. You can have a different opinion on how it is received by you, but you can’t declare this is how everybody felt.
Hint: The fact that I as a female am very outspoken is a an offence for some people as well. Shall I stop posting now, because it does not fit into what society thinks a women should do in certain areas of the world? I don’t think so.
In real life, if I don’t like you, I avoid you, because you and I do not get along. Yet in Cyberspace, we bump into each other over and over again. There is a reason why there are separate areas in real life, and maybe we should start building such places in Cyberspace as well.
Yes, this in part may become a problem if misused. But seriously: If both sides are not willing to change their perspective or enhance it, what reason is there to go through this tantrum over and over again? None at all, only brings misery.
“When in Rome, do as the Romans do”. Sure. But this is not your home aka Rome, but this is the internet. Everybody’s home, and at the moment, everybody expects everybody else to play to their rules. I suggest we ask someone who has studied how society has evolved into the smaller areas like towns and countries, what we can learn from them, because we are going to need it …
Hi Nicole. This is Ernie, who wrote the post on 8Asians. (We also talked a bit when I was working on Yahoo! 360 a while ago.) Okay, I agree with approximately… 90% of your post here.
“Culture, cultural taboos, evolution of a society are not shared on a global level.”
Point taken, and I agree. There is a high degree of race-sensitivity in America – with Asian Americans it comes from such examples the coolie stereotypes when the Chinese built the railroads, or the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. As far as images:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=racist+asian+cartoon&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2
For me personally: Mister Wong’s mascot, with its slanted eyes, depicts images and stereotypes portrayed negatively in American media. And yes, I’m getting that because American media ISN’T the global media, it wouldn’t be taken as offensively in that context, but hey, 8Asians.com is a blog focused on Asian-American and Asian-Canadian issues.
I am interpreting your last two paragraphs as something we (Americans? Asian-Americans?) just need to get over and live with, as the Internet is a large virtual place. And honestly, that’s something I don’t agree with. It doesn’t make sense from a business perspective (if Mister Wong wants to compete in the United States, the logo issue MUST be addressed.) You also can’t undo however many years of cultural tensions by saying that we have to get over it.
Well Ernie, I did not want to single you out on this, but as you asked for it … ;)
And no, I don’t say you have to get over that, absolutely not. While I was thinking over the issues I really put it back to the fact that as far as I know – call me ignorant here – such comics / drawings have a MUCH higher impact on society than over here, no real tradition over here.
There has been some discussion in Germany about the Danish drawing and the Muslims which is a hotter topic because it also touches religious taboos; here it is ‘just’ racial issues.
The tension is just not there here. The mindset is just not there here. And also the emotional issues are not as such here. Not because we are ignorant as you implied, because this does not play any role over here.
And I am stretching an example very thin to get my point across – in a peaceful society there is no need for talk about how many weapons we do produce less this year – because there are none. The mindset is not there, because there is no need.
You will see in my posting that I – with intention – compare it to the stereotypical behaviour which I did experience around the issue of indecent behaviour. And I remember very unfriendly a battle on a text editor mailing list about “that signature which was the wrong version of the bible”. For me, the issue of Mister Wong ranks even lower than that.
The point I was trying to make with the last paragraph perhaps explained in other words: We understand, that if we are some place else, we should really play according to their rules. We do not need to have the same ideas, but we behave that way. And we do expect others to respect our society etc etc.
Like you said, this is nothing small; this is a major issue – over at your place.
But now, when we are on the internet, we do feel like everything is ‘home’ so if there is some site which does not even need to go for your home market or visit you, you feel threatened / attacked etc as well. And you feel like “they should have adapted to ME because this is my “Rome”!”.
But it is not. It is neither my home nor your home, it is OUR home now.
And if at all, this is the part I was missing from your and other reactions the most: The part where you do show, that you agree too that this is a new world a new place. What is an option for you to accept that there is a right for somebody to use such a metaphor and make it work as well as it is your right to feel angry about this?
Saying “They are not allowed to do that!!” is easy. But that is imposing your rules on the rest of the world – mind you how many inhabitants the US and Canada compared to the rest of the world has. You are a minority but you demand to speak for all.
And quite frankly, people like you are rallying people up for your cause. – which is fine, but what is next? Demand that every restaurant on the world which has an icon of a chinese person on it is not allowed to do so because it does not please you? Because they may put it on their menu on the web? Your view is not the view everybody has.
The question is: What exactly is your offer of compromise? Or better: What are your boundaries? And why are they there?
Help me understand them, so I can learn. And understand my position, so you can learn.
I had for example the thought that while Mister Wong is not going to change as a name – and it may never be successful in the US with it which is fine – how about a wise old person, looking asian? A mentor type?
Which is a “stereotype” as well, but should be a positive also for you? Would that make sense but still take into account that there is tension? I have no clue. But I know that I and many others liked that guy a lot and gave me a positive feeling towards asian people.
[Which has been more negative since I have been to the states btw – I avoid everyone asian who is not clearly american for the simple fact that they all seem to make loud noises while eating. Which turns my stomage up and yes I am serious.]
Rome 2.0 – we are building new rules of society here.
When I said “we should ask someone who knows what they are doing” I exactly meant that. Ask someone neutral what would be the right amount of agreement on this. Or somebody who has studied society and tell us how this has been solved in the past, because we are dealing with something similar.
And that is not going to be easy. Because I recently talked to someone who is somebody dealing in this and his main comment was basically “everything happening online in communities right now is so much against everything we have developed in models before – looking at that all in me screams “this cannot work!!!” but it does.”
It is easy for me to say “go to the table Ernie, and play nicely with Kai and nobody comes out before you have not agreed to say I am sorry on both sides” but that would be stupid parent talk. ;)
I have been to the office of Mister Wong for a different reason and there is the sensibility on this issue. But also a demand from the user to get this cute guy back – count me among them – who could care less about your feelings (my posting should show you that I care a bit more than that *g*).
The message of Kai is directly up at the blog before the international launch in 2 weeks I think and could be seen as a clever marketing trick – but for a German, that is a VERY interesting posting. This is what you do not have a clue about: You do not write something like this over here.
From my point of view he has opened up the discussion very wide and is inviting you to the table and is even asking what kind of place and decoration you would like to have. Now it is your turn to step up from “just bitching” and help him.
Yes, he stands for a commercial venue, but the topic long has gone beyond commercial, this is about something else now. It can be an example for your, your cause and show that you are not just some ranting nut job but somebody to take seriously and ask next time. :o)
Ernie, you write “Mister Wong’s mascot, with its slanted eyes, depicts images and stereotypes portrayed negatively in American media.” That’s not particularly specific, and as such not particularly constructive. First of all, you list ONE characteristic but speak of stereotypeS -plural. You fail to specify what stereotypes you associate. You also fully acknowledge that this association is caused by the american media. Yes, your blog is focussed on asian-Americans, but asian-Americans, of all people, should be expected to understand that the world doesn’t end at the borders of the USA or Canada, and that there are sources in the world which are NOT the American press and as such cannot be measured by the same standards. To do so would mean that you’d also expect Le Monde to write more about Texas and less about Normandy. This IS a global community and if anything, your actions are fueling stereotypes -not against asian-Americans, but against Americans in general, as people who consider their nation the axle of the world around which the rest of the world is supposed to rotate.
It is evidently clear what Kai wanted to do with the logo: A good-natured, cartoonish character to go with the name. So the issue is whether your problem is with a cartoonish character in general (If yes, you’d have to explain why chinese people are not supposed to be portrayed in a cartoonish fashion while others are) or with specific points such as the slanted eyes, and provide suggestions as to what an acceptable logo could look like.
I actually don’t think stereotypes against Asians in Germany are that different from those in the US. US popular culture is good at exporting race relations to the rest of the world, and Europeans have done their fair share in reproducing the stereotype of the quiet, always friendly and helpful servant as well. Just take a look at any Lucky Luke comic book to see what I mean.
These stereotypes and objections to them just aren’t that visible within the public discourse simply because there aren’t that many Asians in Germany. Does that mean it’s okay for a company to just take Chinese guy as a mascot without even thinking about any negative connotations? Of course not. They probably would have thought twice before adopting a supposedly funny-looking Jew, Arab or Polish character. Well, at least I hope they would.
And no, this is not about the world getting incredibly complex and Babel-esque. It’s also just a question of good business practices. If you start a company that is competing with global platforms and you entertain even just the remote notion of going global one day yourself, then you should better do some research before you decide on building your whole brand on “that funny Chinese guy”. Because, you know, there are more than a billion Chinese people out there …
@Janko:
You simply repeat the accusations without any evidence. And then you state “just tak a look at any Lucky Luke comic book to see what I mean”. So what do you mean? That you can’t stand satire? Using this example, you already disprove your next paragraph: You say “they” probably would have thought twice before adopting a supposedly funny-looking jew, arab or polish character -but Iznogoud is published in quite some countries across the planet.
What your arguments amount to, finally, is that it’s perfectly ok to portray white people in a cartoonish fashion, but no one else. Sorry, but that would suggest that the racism is on someone else’s side altogether.
Oliver, I really don’t get your Iznogoud argument. What does that have to do with the branding of a service / company? And, since you apparently tried to contradict my argument that the Mister Wong folks would not have used a cartoon Jew or a cartoon Arab: Would you use, say, a financial website that featured a cartoon drawing of a guy with long sideburns, a big, bent nose and thick, round glasses called Mister Wiesenthal?
And yes, it’s obviously better to not use a cartoonish character of an ethnicity whose sensitivities you don’t understand TO BRAND YOUR COMPANY, but instead to stick to making fun of yourself first.
As this is important in this discussion – I am from Austria, so the small country next to germany where everybody has a white peruke, listens to classics or wears leather trousers and drinks a lot of beer. ;-) /sarksam off
Today we form for the first time a global society and everybody learns to interact with other cultures in a new way. Every week I have to shake my head at least once about a story I read from the US. I am sure that this happens the other way too.
The difference is that (in my view) Americans try to press their standard all over the world. There is no discussion started about an issue, but stated from the first minute this has to be this way and all others are wrong. That is the same I see here in the comments.
Janko:
You cited Lucky Luke, obviously ignorant of the fact that it is pure and simple parody, parody precisely of stereotypes, and obviously sweeping under the carpet that it makes fun of many more white stereotypes than chinese, african or anyone else. Which is why I pointed at Iznogoud: No, Arabs aren’t exempt, either.
Your following example is highly misleading: First, it uses a name that will immediately, by anyone worldwide, be associated with one specific person. Second, it uses a field of business that both historically is associated with the group alluded to AND even today has a very ambiguous reputation. Second, you use a graphic depiction that is intentionally -not accidentally- drawn as being a negative depiction.
As for “sticking to making fun of yourself first”, I call you dishonest. “first” implies that there is a “then you can”. But that is not at all what you argue. You argue “not ever”. And you are obviously quite ignorant of the fact that -as taz points out- we not only have stereotypes of ourselves, we have no problem poking fun at the stereotypes of us and/or simply answer being made fun of by making fun of the others in return. At least among the internet generation, no German will get furious if taz addresses him as a Piefke. He’ll laught and call taz something else in return. More: Many a German hase no hesitation of humorously referring to themselves as a “Boche” in France, or as “Kraut” in an english-speaking environment (as in “Yeah, yeah, I know, the stupid Kraut screwed up again”). Why? Because that’s the best way to take the edge out of an insult: Don’t treat it as one and make fun of it instead.
This, I think, is the main issue: You speak of “ethnicity whose sensitivities you don’t understand” but the main objection seems to come not from Asians, but from asian-Americans, as Ernie points out above in the specific context of connotations caused by American media. This, however, is not “an ethnicity”, but a rather small fraction of one that has lived in a specific sociocultural context. Sorry to say, but it reeks of misguided overcompensation for discrimination suffered.
Oliver, just to make one thing clear: This is not about what *one* can do or say or who one can make fun of. taz can address people however he wants. Maybe at some point he will cross a line, and then he will ahve to face consequences. But those are individual actions, and not the branding of a worldwide operating company.
Alas, Iznogoud: It’s a work of art that establishes a context in which it operates and explains itself. You can’t compare that to company branding either: Mister Wong isn’t developing a character and in turn using this character to poke fun at stereotypes. Mister Wong is offering a service branded by a character that in this case expresses certain stereotypes.
Regarding the Jew example: So it would be okay to use the character if I didn’t know that it is a negative depiction? Or should I maybe do some research and see how other people feel about it?
It’s also funny how soon this discussion got to the point where it’s somehow about the US oppressing the world … let’s just recap for a second:
1. Company decides that it would be a great idea to use a stereotypical Chinese guy for their branding.
2. Company wants to expand to the US market.
3. US bloggers object to the stereotypical Chinese guy.
4. Company decides that the US market is more important to their bottom line than their logo.
Sounds like a good example for the old mantra of markets being conversations to me, doesn’t it?
Janko,
you have to decide: Either Lucky Luke is an example for your argument — then Iznogoud is as well — or it isn’t. What you’re currently doing is dodging and weaseling as best as you can and refusing to stand behind your own arguments.
The same with the Jew example: You provided a scenario, I debunked the scenario for three reasons, you pick out ONE of them and try to make a case out of it. If you don’t have the guts to stand by your points, then, alas, a discussion with you is patently impossible.
I also note that once more, you throw vapour of “certain stereotypes”, but are still unable to specify them.
As for “markets being conversations”, I think you should check your numbers a bit. A handful of bloggers getting all riled up and spewing venom isn’t “the market talking”. This isn’t an issue of “bottom line being more important than logo”, but of a company going the extra mile. Unfortunately, true to your complete lack of sense of proportion, instead of recognizing that, you suggest that instead of courtesy, this was something proscribed by natural law. And this is the basic point why your side fails to convince: You show a total lack of sense of proportion and expect goodwill from everyone while failing to show any yourself. Your criticism is entirely destructive, devoid of any constructive suggestions. You demand that others should research on chinese-American sensitivities, despite the fact that for a company going global, they are a nearly insignificant part of the market, while at the same time, you yourself are unwilling to do research of your own. Neither do you care about cultural sensitivities of anyone else, nor did you have any idea what you were saying when you proclaimed “facts” such as “people should make fun of themselves first” which you weasel out of with the next draw of your breath because you have to realise they cannot be upheld. You never meant it anyway.
You’re incapable of supporting your position with solid arguments, no you’re incapable of supporting your position, period. You’re throwing vaporware at us, non-arguments that you never had the intention to actually stand behind. Lucky Luke was evidence, then suddenly it isn’t. People should make fun of themselves first, but when they do, it suddenly isn’t an argument either. Plain and simply: You’re ranting for ranting’s sake. You’re just seeking for something to get riled up about.
Okay, let’s back up here for a second. If you reread my original comment you’ll notice that Lucky Luke was merely an example for the fact that Europeans have their own, homegrown stereotypes about Asians and that we are not talking about something that is completely unfamiliar and thus incomprehensible to Europeans, or in this case European startup founders. And no, you’re not debunking that by saying that Lucky Luke pokes fun at stereotypes, because stereotypes have to exist in order to make fun of them. Agreed?
Then I said that these stereotypes – even though they do exist – aren’t as openly discussed, mostly due to the fact that there are fewer Asians, especially in Germany. That also means fewer people who would call bullshit on this stuff, and more people being less sensitive.
To prove my point I referenced two cultures that folks in Germany are far more sensitive about and questioned whether the Mister Wong folks would have used caricatures of representatives of those cultures. I still hope they wouldn’t. And in that case they shouldn’t have done so with other cultures either.
Ohh, what stereotypes, you might ask? Again, I recommend reading before writing. In my first comment I said “the stereotype of the quiet, always friendly and helpful servant”. Like a guy that is smiling while his back is bent. Familiar picture?
Just a few more things:
> As for “markets being conversationsâ€, I think you should check your numbers a bit.
> A handful of bloggers getting all riled up and spewing venom isn’t “the market talkingâ€.
Mashable.com has 175000 RSS subscribers, so companies should listen to anything that makes for some serious discussion over there.
> “You demand that others should research on chinese-American sensitivities, despite the fact that for a > company going global, they are a nearly insignificant part of the market.”
Remind me to take you to Monterey Park if you ever make it to Los Angeles so you can get familiar with this nearly insignificant part of the market. :)
But again, my point was that this isn’t simply about Asian-American sensitivities, because the same kind of stereotypes exist in Europe as well. And that a company should be extra-sensitive about poking fun at other people, especially when it comes to their branding strategy. I’d think this would be a no brainer. But I guess I can’t help you if you really can’t comprehend that.
>Okay, let’s back up here for a second. If you reread my original comment you’ll notice that Lucky Luke was merely an example for the fact that Europeans have their own, homegrown stereotypes about Asians and that we are not talking about something that is completely unfamiliar and thus incomprehensible to Europeans, or in this case European startup founders. And no, you’re not debunking that by saying that Lucky Luke pokes fun at stereotypes, because stereotypes have to exist in order to make fun of them. Agreed?
You do realize that Lucky Luke is set in America, and poking fun at stereotypes found in Westerns?
>To prove my point I referenced two cultures that folks in Germany are far more sensitive about and questioned whether the Mister Wong folks would have used caricatures of representatives of those cultures. I still hope they wouldn’t. And in that case they shouldn’t have done so with other cultures either.
No, you referenced things that went way beyond a cartoonish representations, you used a specific name, even.
>Ohh, what stereotypes, you might ask? Again, I recommend reading before writing. In my first comment I said “the stereotype of the quiet, always friendly and helpful servantâ€. Like a guy that is smiling while his back is bent. Familiar picture?
Yes, but not in our context, alas. It seems more an issue of seeing things -jumping to conclusions, it’s called.
>Mashable.com has 175000 RSS subscribers, so companies should listen to anything that makes for some serious discussion over there.
Subscribers don’t necessarily share the idea that this issue is worth the ruckuss, and it’s very bad style to claim to speak for some “silent majorities”.
>Remind me to take you to Monterey Park if you ever make it to Los Angeles so you can get familiar with this nearly insignificant part of the market. :)
Thanks, but I’ve been to LA. May I remind you that the latest numbers of the US census are a bit more sensible to use in a discussion? Asian Americans pose 4.3% of the US population. And for Mr. Wong, only that part is relevant that actually uses the internet in such a regular fashion that the service is of interest. Which leaves us with what? Asians may pose a majority in Monterey Park, but that’s far from posing a majority in several states, as Hispanics do.
>But again, my point was that this isn’t simply about Asian-American sensitivities, because the same kind of stereotypes exist in Europe as well. And that a company should be extra-sensitive about poking fun at other people, especially when it comes to their branding strategy. I’d think this would be a no brainer. But I guess I can’t help you if you really can’t comprehend that.
The point here is the “poking fun” part. You’re claiming that someone is treated in such a fashion. More, you’re claiming that it is done in a negative fashion.
I also get the impression that you don’t follow branding issues too much. Mitsubishi’s Pajero was relabelled practically exclusively in countries with a significant spanish-speaking population, and likely only because the Spanish-Speaking world is quite significant, and thus the losses with an inappropriate name would be significant and a relabelling had to happen anyway for spanish-speaking countries. Spanish is spoken by about 5% of the population of the world, which is a bit more than the not-quite 5% of the US market that Asian-Americans pose. Your “no-brainer” is none. Companies take care about things that pose a SIGNIFICANT threat to their bottom line. Example: The fact that Anheuser-Busch/Budweiser is considered a piss-poor brew by just about 95% of Germans doesn’t faze the company the least. Their performance in Germany is insignificant compared to overall sales, and even if only 90% of Germans would stay away from it, their bottom line wouldn’t be influenced on a global scale in such a way that it would be worth the hassle. Compare to Guinness: They sell quite a lot in Germany, and because they know that plenty a German still insists on the beer purity regulations, and before the EU stepped in, they were mandatory to call something beer, the stuff that Guinness used to export to Germany was brewed according to German beer purity regulations. In one case, it makes an influence on the bottom line, in the other, it doesn’t. You can find Irish pubs all over Germany, whereas Budweiser exists practically exclusively within eyesight of US barracks or in specialty pubs which pride themselves in having beer from all over the world (even if they don’t sell a bottle a month of a specific brand).
It seems you can’t see that what you (or Ernie) is doing here is far from fighting stereotypes, but rather promoting them. No stereotypes of ethnic minorities, but those of the people who expect the rest of the world to behave according to their expectations.
I work at the subsidiary of a japanese company. We’re not expected to bow. Not to our superiors, not even to the Japanese CEO. Rather, he is very open and ready to shake-hands. We have very flat hierarchies and while of course the European employees take care not to step on anyone’s toes too much, at the same time, the Japanese employees realize that you have to give as well as take and that internationally, you have to compromise. This -the readiness to compromise- is totally absent from your side of the discussion. Kai removed the character, period, not just for his US presence but altogether, and still it is depicted as if that was the most obvious thing to do and not a sign of goodwill of any kind. If you think you’re propagating cross-cultural understanding in such a fashion, you’re sorely mistaken. You’re doing the precise opposite.
Sorry; belated post but as an Australian I felt compelled to comment. It is ironic and un-self-aware that the blog author desires to “facilitate a broader perspective for some readers ;)”
How unfortunate that this desire can’t be extended to all readers and the author herself. It seems that Nicole, Oliver and Klaus are so assured of their own moral compasses that they can’t accept that perhaps it really is a 2 way street: the figure offended some Asian AND non-Asian Americans due to American history so if a company is going global it is probably not wise or respectful to continue with this figure. But at the same time said Asian Americans should appreciate that it wasn’t purposely perpetrated, but rather fostered through a less culturally and ethinically diverse upbringing and society.
Racism has a huge and fluid spectrum, and is far from objective, so it’s not useful to use the lack of offense taken by some Asian parties as evidence that the other Asian parties are overreacting. Just because the former group may not be offended, this should not lessen or diminish the feelings of the latter group. If we really did consider everyone to be equal, that is.
Things do not have to be on such an obtuse and extreme of Ku Klux Klan mob lynching of African Americans or the Holocaust atrocities in Nazi Germany to still be racial discrimination.
As mentioned before, the actual figure is a bit disturbing to many in countries such as the USA and Australia because it is reminiscent of a very culturally backward and ignorant time in our country’s histories, but also bemusing because it reflects how behind Germany is in some aspects such as this one, as ‘citizens of the world’.
Just as a Jewish person may be offended by a proud neo-Nazi hand salute, so may a non-Jewish German person even though that action does not directly discriminate against them. As an Australian I am offended by that even though I am neither Jewish or German and have no direct links or experience with Nazi history. I am offended because I am ‘human’ and those that suffered were ‘human’ and those that would be directly offended by that now are also ‘human’ and I believe that we are all significant.
And for Oliver saying that as Chinese-Americans are a nearly insignificant part of the market for a company going global, it really drives home to me how much the race = country beliefs are ingrained in European countries as opposed to ‘new countries’ like my own, Australia. I can easily imagine that in the USA a Chinese American has as much right to feel undiscriminated as a non-Chinese American, because they are American first and foremost. And a non-Chinese American can also be offended even though it does not directly offend them because they are both Americans and human beings.
Yes people can get too sensitive and people can be splitting hairs and definitions of racism or what should be interpreted as such but it always pays to be attempt to be, as best possible, considerate of everyone’s feelings whether you understand them or not, because often things like bullying can start small and insignificant and unintended to be discrimination or offense but unchecked can become easily become all those things.
I’m not saying that you have to be treading on eggshells in order not to offend, because I have noticed that there is a bit of over-the-top PC-ness in the USA which has actually sometimes resulted in more tolerance as opposed to acceptance, and less communication occurring as a consequence. But rather I am suggesting that both parties would be wise to not shoot down the other’s experience so quickly. I noticed that Ernie actually seemed to be trying very hard to be even-handed in his responses but Oliver was quite adamant to dismiss Ernie and Janko’s views immediately.
Sceptic, did it ever occur to you that it’s you who is jumping to conclusions? Frankly, I am more than a bit disturbed by your bringing in the Nazi salute and the holocaust. On the one hand, you say “things don’t need to be on such an extreme”, but if you actually appreciated that, you would know that the comparison of discrimination to industrialized mass murder by the millions is more than a bit disturbing. Worse, you miss that most people displaying the salute today actually have a favorable opinion of those commiting such acts. Your comparing everything from everyday discrimination over the Ku-Klux-Klan with the Holocaust is frankly quite a bit disturbing. The Holocaust doesn’t lend itself to inflationary use as a comparison lest one wants to trivialize it.
What truly destroys your credibility, however, is something else: You claim to argue against discrimination, but at the same time use a huge brush to paint not just one or the other German but “Germany” as “behind as citizens of the world”. What, please, is that other than discrimination? Funnily enough, you say so even when addressing people who have lived on another continent and work in an overseas company.
Your suggestion that my argument about Chinese-Americans has something to do with race=country beliefs boggles the mind. I referred to the size of the population. It is totally irrelevant whether that population is connected to any race, country, or other characteristic. If you believe that a company strives to please everyone, I cannot call your ideas anything else but naive. It’s not their job to please everyone. It’s their job to generate money. And as long as stepping on someone’s toes doesn’t hurt business, they have no obligation of caring. All the more one should be thankful if they actually care enough. I certainly couldn’t see that in Ernie and Janko’s responses, or those of others irate about the logo.
Most importantly, however, I never shot down anyone else’s experience. Quite the contrary. The key point, however, is that experience is something very subjective and applies to noone else but oneself. The person who does the discrimination is the one applying such experience to everyone and his granny, regardless of whether they have a sound basis for doing so or not. The point to keep in mind is that simply because I make an association with something doesn’t mean that anyone else actually does. Thus, it is false to claim that I am dismissing anyone’s experience. I am warning against using it as the sole applicable ledger in judging people, especially people one doesn’t know. It’s using a screwdriver to drive in a nail, and in the end, it is, itself, discrimination. What it is, essentially, in the present case is using a logo as a Rorschach test, and as such, if anything at all, is more telling of the personality of those who see something specific in it, than those who made it.
Want to know my association with the old logo? A while ago, instead of this photo http://www.ftd.de/wirtschaftswunder/imgs/fricke_.jpg
the Financial Times Germany used a somewhat stylized version. It bore a cunning resemblance to the old logo. Now, do you want to claim that the fact that they used a stylized version of their chief economist’s face a discrimination of people of Chinese ancestry, just because with his suit, his receding hairline and his, in the stylized version, rather yellowish skintone, he looks a bit like the old logo?
Thinking about it, I’m not sure what precisely the color was they picked for the skin tone… tried to see if I find the old version, but it seems to be gone. Not that it’s really relevant, the association still holds.
Oliver, did it ever occur to you that it could even be _both_ of us jumping to conclusions? I’m not sure there actually is any point picking apart your argument because you are clearly on the defense from the start and unwilling to open your own mind to others’ experiences so as soon as you hear anything that makes you uncomfortable you shut them down because of your own arrogance and conviction of your moral and intellectual high-ground on this issue.
I certainly never claimed that whatever offense this figure may have caused is somehow equivalent to the horrors of WWII Germany, I was making the point that it is the link with HISTORY that makes people feel uncomfortable or feel that something is inappropriate. For a long time in the USA Asians were caricatured in the media with receding hairlines, sometimes bucktooth, but generally for Asian men assexualised and/or made into an example of an evil exotic menace, also including when Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps during WWII.
Mister Wong’s appearance is disturbingly reminiscent of the type of assexualised ‘nerd’ type stereotyping that occurred which was associated with a time when Asians in America did not have the same property or civil rights as white Americans. It smacks of the ignorance of the time that an Asian or Black or Jewish person could actually have the same rights let alone the same diversity within their own racial/ethnic groups that ‘white’ people do. Interestingly a white person never has to define themselves as white in countries like America and Australia as they are the ‘norm’, the ‘happy medium’, yet if a person is anything other than white this extra definition seems to need to be added to it. This is why a cartoon of a ‘white person’ is not taken as offense because no one actually believes that there is a stereotypical look for a white person because we can appreciate the huge genetic diversity within this group.
Nicole sees a man who seems kind and clever; I have travelled in China and on occasion see men who may possibly resemble a de-caricatured version of Mister Wong (if I use my imagination) and some of them have turned out to be kind and/or clever and others haven’t. It seems so childish from my Australian point of view to draw such a strange conclusion of principles of kindness and cleverness from the image of Mister Wong for me, but that is probably because I live in Sydney where there are many Asians around and I can actually differentiate between them and most of them don’t actually look like this overweight, balding nerdish fellow, and those that do are not necessarily kind and.or clever
I actually don’t really understand what Oliver is talking about half the time because he seems to be so convinced that I’m going to attack everything he says, which I’m actually not. If this was such an open-minded discussion he wouldn’t need to use such an inflammatory tone; for example: “Now, do you want to claim that the fact that they used a stylized version of their chief economist’s face a discrimination of people of Chinese ancestry, just because with his suit, his receding hairline and his, in the stylized version, rather yellowish skintone, he looks a bit like the old logo?” I don’t even understand his point in saying this, because I’m not trying to claim half the things he seems to think I am. And yes, I will be discriminatory in my next point; that perhaps it’s not wise to argue with someone who is not only stubborn but clearly doesn’t share the same native language (mine is English).
By the way, where you say my argument is supposedly ‘destroyed’ and shows evidence of my discrimination against Germany; yes I have made an assumption based on the majority of German responses I’ve seen on the net about this issue that perhaps their views (i.e. the same as yours) is somehow representative of the broader majority of German cultural views. If you are a minority in Germany on this view, then I apologise. But hypothetical, if your views do represent the majority then I feel I can make that claim that Germany – or rather, the majority of German society – must be behind as citizens in the world, in terms of THIS issue. And that would be of no ones fault, because Germany simply does not have the ethnic and racial diversity that some of the English speaking non-European countries such as Australia or the USA, and hence lacks the general cultural awareness that others might.
I hate to think I may have implied that somehow the USA is in front of Germany as a citizen of the world because if anything the USA would be behind as a citizen of the world with their poor record on most things not the least, of the environment, support of renewable energy resources, separation of religion from political issues, etc, which clearly Germany would be ahead of on many of these fronts.
Phew, I’m scared to push the send button because on Oliver’s track record there’s sure to be some more potentially nonsensical and overreacting comments from him at least.